On Aug 7, 6:12 pm, alex23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 7, 8:08 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Really how silly can it be when you suggest someone is taking a > > position and tweaking the benchmarks to prove a point [...] > > I certainly didn't intend to suggest that you had tweaked -anything- > to prove your point.
While that was not how I read it first, I assume that was a misjudged reading. > I do, however, think there is little value in slavishly implementing > the same algorithm in different languages. To constrain a dynamic > language by what can be achieved in a static language seemed like such > an -amazingly- artificial constraint to me. That you're a fan of > Python makes such a decision even more confusing. It is a sufficiently well understood maxim, that any comparison between two factors should attempt to keep other factors as equal as possible (Ceteris Paribus - Everything else being equal), slavishly if you will. It is my perception that had I changed the algorithms, I would've been a much higher level of criticism a lot more for comparing apples and oranges. I simply could not understand your point with regards to dynamic vs. static languages. If you are by any chance referring to make the code a little less OO, I believe the entire exercise could be redone using a procedural algorithm, and all the languages will run much much faster than they currently do. But that would be essentially moving from an OO based design to a procedural design. Is that what you are referring to (I suspect not .. I suspect it is something else) ? If not, would certainly appreciate you spending 5 mins describing that. I am a fan of Python on its own merits. There is little relationship between that and this exercise. > It's great that you saw value in Python enough to choose it for actual > project work. It's a shame you didn't endeavour to understand it well > enough before including it in your benchmark. I have endeavoured hard, and maybe there's a shortcoming in the results of that endeavour. But I haven't quite understood what it is I haven't understood (hope that makes sense :) ) > As for it being "disappointing", the real question is: has it been > disappointing for you in actual real-world code? I am extremely happy with it. But there definitely are some projects I worked on earlier I would simply not choose any dynamic language for (not ruby / not python / not ruby / not groovy). These languages simply cannot be upto the performance demands required of some projects. > Honestly, performance benchmarks seem to be the dick size comparison > of programming languages. Not sure if there is a real life equivalent use case if I was to use this analogy further. But there are some days (mind you not most days) one needs a really big dick. Always helpful to know the size. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
