Michael Torrie schrieb am 26.06.2015 um 19:32:
> I've never heard of pythran; I'll have to check it out and see how it
> compares to the ever-growing crop of Python dialect compilers.
My feeling is that Python seems such a simple language at the surface that
people who want to write a special purp
On 06/23/2015 10:53 AM, Laurent Pointal wrote:
> Mark Lawrence wrote:
>
>> Another beasty I've just stumbled across which you may find interesting
>> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213133714000687
>
> Why use a JIT complation when you could use some C++ generation then
> com
Mark Lawrence wrote:
> Another beasty I've just stumbled across which you may find interesting
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213133714000687
Why use a JIT complation when you could use some C++ generation then
compilation as Python module, like with Pythran ?
https://git
In a message of Sun, 21 Jun 2015 10:29:32 +0100, BartC writes:
>It also puts in a good dig at PyPy by including one benchmark where it
>is 6 times as slow as CPython!
>
>It's not clear why it's particularly useful for astrophysics.
>
>--
>Bartc
It's not that good a dig, as they say that it took
On 21/06/2015 01:29, Mark Lawrence wrote:
Another beasty I've just stumbled across which you may find interesting
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213133714000687
Blimey, that's a lot of waffle in there, but I suppose that's to be
expected from a published paper.
I think th
Another beasty I've just stumbled across which you may find interesting
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213133714000687
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/
