igouy at yahoo.com
Wed Nov 30 21:41:46 CET 2005
Peter Hansen wrote:
> David Rasmussen wrote:
> > Frithiof Andreas Jensen wrote:
> >>From the speed requirement: Is that correspondance chess by any chance??
> > Regular chess at tournament time controls requires speed too. Any pure
> > Python chess program would lose badly to the best C/C++ programs out
> > there now.
> > I would also like to see Half Life 2 in pure Python.
> True, but so what? Why did you suddenly change the discussion to
> require "pure" Python? And please define "pure" Python, given that the
> interpreter and many builtins, not to mention many widely used extension
> modules, are coded in C? And are you not allowed to use any of the
> performance-boosting techniques available for Python, like Pyrex or
> Psyco? Why such restrictions, when these are things Python programs use
> on a daily basis: these are *part* of Python, as much as the -O switch
> on the compiler is part of C/C++.
> Okay, let's compare a "pure" Python program (if you can define it in any
> meaningful, practical way) with a "pure" Java program, running on a
> non-JIT interpreter and with optimizations turned off (because, of
> course, those optimizations are umm... somehow.. not "pure"...?).
> Judging by the other posts in this thread, the gauntlet is down: Python
> is faster than Java. Let those who believe otherwise prove their point
> with facts, and without artificially handcuffing their opponents with
> non-real-world "purity" requirements.
That form of argument is listed as one of the principal forms of
illogical thinking in "Being Logical" D.Q.McInerny - "An Inability to
Disprove Does Not Prove"
"The fact that there is no concrete proof against a position does not
constitute an argument in favour of the position. I cannot claim to be
right simply because you can't prove me to be wrong."
More information about the Python-list