Does Python really follow its philosophy of "Readability counts"?
bruno.42.desthuilliers at websiteburo.invalid
Wed Jan 14 18:08:44 CET 2009
Paul Rubin a écrit :
> "James Mills" <prologic at shortcircuit.net.au> writes:
>> Python is a dynamic object oriented language ... (almost verbatim
>> from the website). It is compiled to bytecode and run on a virtual
> 1. There is nothing inherent about dynamic languages that prevents
> them from being compiled. There are compiled implementations of
> Lisp and Scheme that beat the pants off of Python in performance.
Yes. If you're really that concerned about Python's performances, you
may want to contribute to Pypy.
> 2. There is also nothing inherent in a dynamic OO language that says
> that class descriptors have to be mutable,
Nope, but that's how Python is designed, and we are quite a few here
that value this more than raw perfs.
> any more than strings have
> to be mutable (Python has immutable strings). I agree that being able
> to modify class descriptors at runtime is sometimes very useful. The
> feature shouldn't be eliminated from Python or else it wouldn't be
> Python any more. But those occasions are rare enough that having to
> enable the feature by saying (e.g.) "@dynamic" before the class
> definition doesn't seem like a problem,
This imply that you (as the library author) pretend to know by advance
when your users (programmers) will have a need for dynamism and when
they won't. Fact is : you never know. It's the same old horse as
enforcing access restriction : the net result is that you prevent users
(which, I repeat, are programmers) to use your library as they see fit.
More information about the Python-list