On 10 April 2017 at 02:21, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote: > > .... > > My take on the idea of making Python less dynamic in order > to improve speed is that you'll end up with a language that, > while it may superficially resemble Python, doesn't > really feel like Python. > > Boo is an example of that. It has a Python-like syntax, but > to get any speed advantage you need to add static type > delarations, and then it feels more like programming in > C# than Python. At that point, you wonder whether you might > just be better off writing your program in C# to begin with. > > That's not to say this kind of approach isn't worth pursuing, > but like the JIT attempts mentioned in the article, it has > also been tried before, with varying levels of success.
Agree. python is python and I suppose that performance issues has much to do with types and OOP. When I first started with python I thought - no, it is not possible without types, if I'll write something more complicated than hello world, it will all break at some point. But hell, this works and works good. Still I miss some old school features in Python, e.g. "goto" statement would be very useful in some cases. I know it is considered bad style to use goto, but in some cases it is just most natural thing to use. What I am (and probably many people) missing is a good tool for performance middle- and low-level applications. For me it would be a coding tool, sort of minimalist IDE, with simple readable syntax which generates compilable C code. And it would not be necessarily python-like syntax, but I tend to agree that for today python's syntax is most readable. The problem that many are overlooking still is that the possibilities for syntaxes are very limited in pure text-mode presentation. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
