On Sun, 01 Jan 2006 02:55:01 -0800, bonono wrote: >> But sadly, many decision makers don't understand these subtleties. To >> them, compiled languages like C++ and Java are Good, interpreted languages >> are Bad and doomed to be slow and weak. As soon as you describe >> Zope/Python as "interpreted", you turn off maybe 25% or 50% of the Pointy >> Haired Bosses who are making the decision of what technologies are used. > > I don't see that as a problem. In fact, it alarms them the right way. > For those who don't care(I met many who don't, so long the technology > delivers the end result, they don't want to know the difference or the > buzz words), it doesn't matter. For those who knows a little bit(even > not the detail) and care, this "interpreted" term gives them the right > reason to ask : > > 1. would that be slow ? > 2. does it mean the source cannot be reasonably seperated from the end > product ?
Dude, if they had the sense to ask the question "Will this be slow?" they won't be a PHB now will they? :-) They should be asking these questions about *any* technology. If you care about keeping your algorithms secret, you should be asking about source code, and debugging information, and how easily can attackers disassemble your code, not just assuming "oh it is compiled, it will be fine". If you care about speed, and let's face it, we all care about speed, you should ask how fast the code will run regardless of what language it is written in. I can write C code that will run slower than Python code, and take longer to do it too. I'm not worried about people having the sense to judge Python on its merits. If Python is not suited for a particular job, then we would not be doing anyone any favours to push Python for that job. I'm worried about people who pre-judging (as in prejudice) Python negatively on the basis of buzzwords they barely understand. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
