python simply not scaleable enough for google?

[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?

> 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?


-- 
Rami Chowdhury
"Never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to stupidity" --  
Hanlon's Razor
408-597-7068 (US) / 07875-841-046 (UK) / 0189-245544 (BD)