"Bruno Desthuilliers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Brad a écrit : >> cm_gui wrote: >>> Python is slow. >> >> It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between. I >> find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really >> matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language >> (Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++) > > LordHaveMercy(tm). Could you guys please learn what you're talking about? > > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an > implementation of a language.
That's like saying being spherical is not a property of planets, it's a property of an instanciation of a planet. Let alone that a) all known planets are spherical (all implementations of Python are not natively compiled (and you said for whatever definition)), and b) It's a far cry to imagine a planet coming into being that's not spherical (a language as dynamic as Python, or most other scripting languages, would be either extremely difficult or impossible to make a native compiler for). I guess I should also mention that Python isn't very practical (as in "suitable", "right tool for the job", and "perfomance", as mentioned in the above post) without an implementation. So I don't think this distinction has any use other than to beat other people over the head with a bat. > > 2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code. > Which is then interpreted, but you're still technically right, because "compiled" can mean either compiled to bytecode or compiled to native code, despite what it actually did mean. Semantics FTW!!
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
