Steve Holden wrote: > If you want a fast language, try Holden. I've just invented it. > Unfortunately it gets the answer to every problem wrong unless the > answer is 42, but boy it runs quickly. The code for the whole > interpreter (it's written in Python) follows: > > print 42 > > Why are you looking for a "fast language" without any regard for the > kind of problems you actually want (or need) to solve?
isn't measuring speed by timing for-loops a 70's thing? I remember doing that back when I used Z80 BASIC machines (on a 3.58 MHz machine using floating point variables, each iteration took almost exactly 1 millisecond). I also remember that the compiler for my first custom language for that machine contained exactly one optimization: empty loops were replaced with plain assign- ments. everyone was mightly impressed. (for another view of Python's performance, see John Walker's floating point benchmarks: http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/archives/2005-08/000567.html from what I can tell, Python's the fastest interpreter in that test...) </F> -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
