On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > but overall, I think it's fair to say that IronPython is about 1.8 times the > speed of CPython. > > >> With any other implementation language, it would have ground to a halt. > > That's laughably inaccurate.
I'm sure that Python could have been implemented in FORTRAN without losing performance. Conversely, I'm sure Python could also have been implemented on top of BASIC if someone felt like it, though what the advantages might be I have no idea. But performance is not (or should not be) the primary reason for choosing a language. Imagine if all your Python code ran twice as fast (that's slightly better than the IronPython figure quoted!), but worked only on BSD Unix and Mac OS. Is that something that'll make a fledgling language succeed? Or would universality, even at the cost of performance, lead to a greater userbase and development team, which ultimately would result in far greater improvements in both functionality and performance? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
