In comp.lang.python, you wrote: > Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 13:25: >> If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here. >> Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a >> systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distribution >> without an interpeter, non-necessity of distributing source with the >> product, ability to leverage multiple CPU and multicore systems, and >> simple sequential performance. >> >> Given that Python does't work well in many areas, we could just give up >> and accept having to write C++ for our day jobs or we can look for a >> language which bridges the gap between those tasks that require C++'s >> level of control and those which work well for dynamic languages. >> Java attempted to do that, and has the market share to show that the >> concept works, but I think that it missed the mark for many needs. It is >> still much lower level then Python for purposes of rapid developement >> and too slow to be competative for non-long-lived tasks. > > So seriously need to take a look at Cython. > > http://cython.org
One of the arguments for Python has always made is that you can optimize it by writing the most important parts in C. Perhaps that is a crutch that has held the communty back from seeking higher performance solutions in the language itself. I prefer a single language as opposed to a creolization of two. Go gives me more less complete independence from C. I can write pretty much anything I would like using almost pure Go and because it generates a native binary with similar performance to C, I don't need to resort to using another language. I certainly don't need to require anybody who wants to use a program I have compiled to install an interpreter. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
