python simply not scaleable enough for google?

[Aaron Watters]

> I don't think Python and Go address the same set of programmer
> desires.  For example, Go has a static type system.  Some programmers
> find static type systems to be useless or undesirable.  Others find
> them extremely helpful and want to use them them.  If you're a
> programmer who wants a static type system, you'll probably prefer Go
> to Python, and vice versa.  That has nothing to do with implementation
> speed or development expenditures.  If Google spent a million dollars
> adding static types to Python, it wouldn't be Python any more.

... and I still have an issue with the whole "Python is slow"
meme.  The reason NASA doesn't build a faster Python is because
Python *when augmented with FORTRAN libraries that have been
tested and optimized for decades and are worth billions of dollars
and don't need to be rewritten* is very fast.

The reason they don't replace the Python drivers with Java is
because that would be very difficult and just stupid and I'd be
willing to bet that when they were done the result would actually
be *slower* especially when you consider things like process
start-up time.

And when someone implements a Mercurial replacement in GO (or C#
or Java) which is faster and more useful than Mercurial, I'll
be very impressed.  Let me know when it happens (but I'm not
holding my breath).

By the way if it hasn't happened and if he isn't afraid
of public speaking someone should invite Matt Mackall
to give a Python conference keynote.  Or how about
Bram Cohen for that matter...

   -- Aaron Watters http://listtree.appspot.com/

===
if you want a friend, get a dog.  -Truman