On 5 Aug, 20:54, "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > JIT has been around for decades now, it's well documented, well > understood, and quite common.
Apart from Psyco, whose status is hopefully that of being revived somewhat [1], not quite common enough to permeate the most popular Python implementation, it would seem. > You'd learn enough to answer every > single one of your demands in 20 minutes with Google, and if you're > seriously going to continue to argue that JIT doesn't exist (and this > is even granting your own bizarre definition of compile, which may as > well be called "purplizing") you should be able to argue from a > position of knowledge instead of stunning, jaw dropping, soul > shattering ignorance. Well, I'd rather that we went through the process of occasional tuition here on comp.lang.python - a process which I think has shown progress and remained moderately on-topic - rather than have the endless recycling of threads on syntax polishing and the usual furniture rearrangement, punctuated by outbursts fuelled by gross misunderstandings which never get corrected because everyone has offended everyone else and stormed off to agitate elsewhere. Indeed, I'd like to see such matters discussed more in the Python community, not less, and I imagine that I'm not alone with this opinion. Python 3000 is a prime example of how language tidying has had complete dominance over certain practical matters like performance. If such discussion leads people to insights that they otherwise wouldn't have had, thus improving the situation, then I for one am happy to entertain the inquirer's apparent ignorance. Paul [1] http://www.europython.org/Talks%20and%20Themes/Abstracts#53 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
