Python future performance and speed

[Roy Smith]

In article <wt6dncL0d4DMJLXcRVn-uQ at powergate.ca>,
 Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:

> Roy Smith wrote:
> 
> > Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level 
> > (aka scripting) languages in general.  I can think of no reason why so 
> > much software is still written in languages like C++ other than 
> > performance (or at least, the perception of it).
> 
> I'm glad you added that parenthetical comment, because I'm nearly
> certain that it is *not* actual experience with Python, and
> disappointment with its speed, that is the cause.

I suspect that most decisions to use or not use any given technology are 
made long before any objective tests have been run.  Perception is often 
more important than measurement.

> it's quite certain
> that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
> fully.  The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
> widely considered to be high level languages.  Has someone been
> raising the bar while I wasn't looking?

Yes, I think they have.  I don't think a language that deals with memory 
management at the level that C and C++ do (explicit allocation and 
deallocation, pointers, etc) can be called high-level today.  Even in 
the 1970's, when C first appeared, it wasn't considered particularly 
high level.

There's a lot that I don't like about Java too, but at least it doesn't 
expose raw memory to the application logic, so I'll go along with Java 
being high level.  At least for now.  It's a moving target, and if you 
ask me again in 5 years, I'll probably give you a different answer.