python simply not scaleable enough for google?

Alf P. Steinbach alfps at start.no
Thu Nov 12 21:02:11 CET 2009


* Rami Chowdhury:
> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:24:18 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no> 
> wrote:
> 
>> * Rami Chowdhury:
>>> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:32:28 -0800, Alf P. Steinbach <alfps at start.no> 
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This also seems religious. It's like in Norway it became illegal to 
>>>> market lemon soda, since umpteen years ago it's soda with lemon 
>>>> flavoring. This has to do with the *origin* of the citric acid, 
>>>> whether natural or chemist's concoction, no matter that it's the 
>>>> same chemical. So, some people think that it's wrong to talk about 
>>>> interpreted languages, hey, it should be a "language designed for 
>>>> interpretation", or better yet, "dynamic language", or bestest, 
>>>> "language with dynamic flavor". And slow language, oh no, should be 
>>>> "language whose current implementations are perceived as somewhat 
>>>> slow by some (well, all) people", but of course, that's just silly.
>>>  Perhaps I'm missing the point of what you're saying but I don't see 
>>> why you're conflating interpreted and dynamic here? Javascript is 
>>> unarguably a dynamic language, yet Chrome / Safari 4 / Firefox 3.5 
>>> all typically JIT it. Does that make Javascript non-dynamic, because 
>>> it's compiled? What about Common Lisp, which is a compiled language 
>>> when it's run with CMUCL or SBCL?
>>
>> Yeah, you missed it.
>>
>> Blurring and coloring and downright hiding reality by insisting on 
>> misleading but apparently more precise terminology for some vague 
>> concept is a popular sport, and chiding others for using more 
>> practical and real-world oriented terms, can be effective in politics 
>> and some other arenas.
>>
> 
>> But in a technical context it's silly. Or dumb. Whatever.
>>
>> E.g. you'll find it impossible to define interpretation rigorously in 
>> the sense that you're apparently thinking of.
> 
> Well, sure. Can you explain, then, what sense you meant it in?

I think that was in the part you *snipped* here. Just fill in the mentioned 
qualifications and weasel words. And considering that a routine might be an 
intepreter of data produced elsewhere in program, needs some fixing...


>> You'll also find it impossible to rigorously define "dynamic language" 
>> in a general way so that that definition excludes C++. <g>
> 
> Or, for that matter, suitably clever assembler. I'm not arguing with you 
> there.
> 
>> So, to anyone who understands what one is talking about, 
>> "interpreted", or e.g. "slow language" (as was the case here), conveys 
>> the essence.
> 
> Not when the context isn't clear, it doesn't.
> 
>> And to anyone who doesn't understand it trying to be more precise is 
>> an exercise in futility and pure silliness  --  except for the purpose 
>> of misleading.
> 
> Or for the purpose of greater understanding, surely - and isn't that the 
> point?

I don't think that was the point.

Specifically, I reacted to the statement that <<it is sheer nonsense to talk 
about "the" speed of an implementation>>, made in response to someone upthread, 
in the context of Google finding CPython overall too slow.

It is quite slow. ;-)


Cheers,

- Alf



More information about the Python-list mailing list