[Paul Rubin]
> It's true that CPython doesn't have a compiler and that's
> a serious deficiency.
Hi, Paul. I did not closely follow all of the thread, so maybe my
remark below, only repeats what others might have said and I missed?
Deep down, why or how not having a [traditional, to-native-code]
compiler is a deficiency for CPython? We already know that such a beast
would not increase speed so significantly, while using much more memory.
It is true that a standard traditional compiler for CPython would allow
one would be to check the box:
[x] has a compiler
in the fashion of the day language information sheet, and for some
readers, not having that box checked is a deficiency in itself. :-)
So far, it seems that the only way to get speed is to attach static
type information to some variables. Some compilation avenues do it
through information added either in Python source code or in extraneous
declarative files, other approaches do it by delaying compilation
until such information is discovered at run-time. The former taints
the purity of real CPython as the only source. The later often shows
spectacular speed gain, but not always, and may bloat size unboudedly.
--
François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
