George Sakkis a écrit : > On Jan 11, 4:12 am, Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno. > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> George Sakkis a écrit : >> >>> On Jan 10, 3:37 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: >>>> I fail to see how the existence of JIT compilers in some Java VM changes >>>> anything to the fact that both Java (by language specification) and >>>> CPython use the byte-code/VM scheme. >>> Because these "some Java VMs" with JIT compilers are the de facto >>> standard used by millions; >> Repeating an argument doesn't make it more true nor more relevant. Once >> again, this doesn't change anything to the fact exposed above. >> >>> the spec is pretty much irrelevant >> I mentionned this because this kind of choice is usually not part of the >> language spec but of a specific implementation. Java is AFAIK the only >> language where this implementation stuff is part of the spec. >> >>> (unless >>> you're a compiler writer or language theorist). >> I thought it was quite clear and obvious that I was talking about points >> relating to these fields. > > No it wasn't,
""" > or is Python just too slow > as an interpreted language Being "interpreted" is a quality of an implementation, not of a language. """ If that isn't clear enough what I'm talking about, then sorry but I can't help. > and besides the OP is most likely interested in these as > a simple user so the distinction between a spec and a de facto > standard implementation (such as JDK for Java and CPython for Python) > are almost pedantic if not misleading. I can live with being called "pedantic" - even I'm not sure whether correcting a wrong statement about CPython's execution model is pedantic or not. But I *still* fail to see how it could be "misleading", and *you* still fail to explain in which way it could be misleading. If your point is that saying that CPython uses a byte-code/VM scheme "just like Java" necessarily implies JIT compilation just because some JVM support this feature, then it would be time you pay more attention to what is effectively written. > We're not Lisp (yet ;-)), with > five major implementations and a dozen of minor ones. And ? In which way does it make the distinction between a language and a language implementation less true ? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
