Is this make sence? Dynamic assembler for python

[Dave Angel]

DivX wrote:
> On 20 lip, 12:46, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>   
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 03:19:48 -0700, DivX wrote:
>>     
>>> On 20 lip, 02:52, Steven D'Aprano <st... at REMOVE-THIS-
>>> cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>>>       
>> [...]
>>     
>>>> I think that mixing assembly and python is a gimmick of very little
>>>> practical significance. If you really need the extra performance, check
>>>> out PyPy, Cython, Pyrex and Psyco.
>>>>         
>>>> --
>>>> Steven
>>>>         
>>> I can agree with you about most of the arguments, but why he continues
>>> to developing it. What he sees and we do not see?
>>>       
>> Why ask us? You should ask him.
>>
>> --
>> Steven
>>     
>
> Be sure I will ask him, but before, I wanted to know your opinions
> about it. Hear arguments on both sides...
>
>   
Something's intrinsically wrong with the argument made in this thread 
against generating assembly code.  That's exactly what happens every 
time you write code in C.  The real question is whether the code 
generator your friend is writing is better than the ones written by 
dozens of C gurus over the years, and better tuned to the requirements 
of his particular processor.  Naturally, better can be measured in 
several ways.


For example, I have a processor for which no C compiler is available.  
So if I were to want optimized assembler, I might need to write one 
myself, or use the language for which such a code generator has been 
written.


DaveA