pro python paper

beliavsky at aol.com beliavsky at aol.com
Tue Aug 10 15:49:38 CEST 2004


ccdetail at gmail.com (ccdetail) wrote in message news:<305aa162.0408091905.5bce8f9a at posting.google.com>...
> http://www.journyx.com/pdf/PythonAtAGlance.pdf
> 
> the above paper is a response to some of our prospects complaints
> 
> they were asking us why we use python
> 
> thought you guys might be interested
> 
> http://journyx.com/clf

I think the paper exaggerates the virtues of Python relative to other
languages, reducing the credibility of the authors. The paragraph in
the Python myths section

"It has no compiler to native code, which means Python programs run
slower.  True, it does not compile. That does not mean, however, that
Python programs run slower. If you are tracking the speed of quarks or
landing the space shuttle, you might want to write in Assembly or some
other very low-level language.  Other than that, a standard business
application written in Python will run every bit as well as one
written in any other language."

pretends that the main alternative to Python is Assembly, or some
other
"very low-level language". Have the authors not heard of C++ (with the
Standard Template Library) or Fortran 95 (with multidimensional arrays
and associated intrinsic functions)?

It is more honest and credible to admit that a Python program often is
slower than one in a compiled language, but that reduced programming
time in Python often outweighs this deficit.



More information about the Python-list mailing list