python simply not scaleable enough for google?
paul at boddie.org.uk
Sun Nov 15 18:16:58 CET 2009
On 15 Nov, 09:30, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
> greg wrote:
> > These restrictions mean that it isn't really quite
> > Python, though.
> Python code that only uses a subset of features very much *is* Python
> code. The author of ShedSkin makes no claim that is compiles all Python
Of course, Shed Skin doesn't support all the usual CPython features,
but the code you would write for Shed Skin's benefit should be Python
code that runs under CPython. It's fair to say that Shed Skin isn't a
"complete" implementation of what CPython defines as being "the full
Python", but you're still writing Python. One can argue that the
restrictions imposed by Shed Skin inhibit the code from being "proper"
Python, but every software project has restrictions in the form of
styles, patterns and conventions.
This is where the "Lesser Python" crowd usually step in and say that
they won't look at anything which doesn't support "the full Python",
but I think it's informative to evaluate which features of Python give
the most value and which we could do without. The "Lesser Python"
attitude is to say, "No! We want it all! It's all necessary for
everything!" That doesn't really help the people implementing "proper"
implementations or those trying to deliver better-performing
In fact, the mentality that claims that "it's perfect, or it will be
if we keep adding features" could drive Python into a diminishing
niche over time. In contrast, considering variations of Python as some
kind of "Greater Python" ecosystem could help Python (the language)
adapt to the changing demands on programming languages to which Go
(the Google language, not Go! which existed already) is supposedly a
P.S. And PyPy is hardly a dud: they're only just getting started
delivering the performance benefits, and it looks rather promising.
More information about the Python-list