On May 6, 9:29 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Isaac Gouy wrote:
> > On May 6, 6:09 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> >>>John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Neil Hodgson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli:
>
> > Can you run a generic benchmark "inside the current implementation of
> > Flash" to check out its Javascript performance? I can't, so, ...
>
> I can't either (without going to a lot of effort) so here is a page
> comparing Spide
Isaac Gouy wrote:
> On May 6, 6:09 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Alex Martelli wrote:
>>
>>>John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>The CPython implementation is unreasonably sl
Alex Martelli:
> Can you run a generic benchmark "inside the current implementation of
> Flash" to check out its Javascript performance? I can't, so, ...
I can't either (without going to a lot of effort) so here is a page
comparing SpiderMonkey and Tamarin from someone with an adobe.com add
On May 6, 6:09 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alex Martelli wrote:
> > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >>>On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
> to good im
John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
> to good implementations of other dynamic languages such
> as LISP and JavaScript.
...
> >>Tamarin is a just-in-time compiler for Javascript.
> >
> > ...and is not yet released,
Alex Martelli wrote:
> John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
to good implementations of other dynamic languages such
as LISP
John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
> >>to good implementations of other dynamic languages such
> >>as LISP and JavaScript.
> >
> >
> > Why
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
>>to good implementations of other dynamic languages such
>>as LISP and JavaScript.
>
>
> Why do you say CPython is slower than JavaScript? Please pro
On Apr 27, 9:07 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The CPython implementation is unreasonably slow compared
> to good implementations of other dynamic languages such
> as LISP and JavaScript.
Why do you say CPython is slower than JavaScript? Please provide
examples.
--
http://mail.pytho
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> There are bad programmers in every language, but RPL conditional
> blocks aren't the cause of them. Once you learn how RPL works, if
> statements work consistently and obviously (although maybe not to
> programmers who don't get RP notation).
ACK. What made me anwswer was
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 10:58:25 +0200, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> You didn't take account of what b, c, and d were...
>>
>> RPL: if else end
>> Python:if else
>>
>> (RPL is a somewhat common reference to the stack based language of
>> t
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>(P.S. PEP 3117 is a joke, right?)
I expect so, especially given its creation date.
Gary Duzan
Motorola CHS
--
http://mail.python.org/mail
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> You didn't take account of what b, c, and d were...
>
> RPL: if else end
> Python:if else
>
> (RPL is a somewhat common reference to the stack based language of
> the later calculators -- HP48, for instance)
I still don't see the "more se
On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 06:57:54 +, Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2007 22:39:25 +0200, Bjoern Schliessmann
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> declaimed the following
> in comp.lang.python:
>
>> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>>
>> > And I'll probably ignore those expressions whenever I do get
>> > arou
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
>
>> HP RPL made more sense: b if c [else d] end
>
> Please explain.
>
> HP RPL: b if c [else d] end
> Python: b if c else d
>
> What's the "more sense" here?
The HP RPL leaves even more questions. If the square br
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> And I'll probably ignore those expressions whenever I do get
> around to 2.5+... That syntax, in my mind, just... stinks...
>
> HP RPL made more sense: b if c [else d] end
Please explain.
HP RPL: b if c [else d] end
Python: b if c else d
What's the "more sense" here?
On Apr 27, 12:42 pm, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> > On 27 Apr 2007 08:34:42 -0700, Paul McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
> >>deficient - ternary expressions are now part of the language after
> >>years of refugees f
Dennis Lee Bieber wrote:
> On 27 Apr 2007 08:34:42 -0700, Paul McGuire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> declaimed the following in comp.lang.python:
>
>
>>deficient - ternary expressions are now part of the language after
>>years of refugees from C and C++ asking how to write "a = b ? c : d",
>>and now they
John Nagle wrote:
> (P.S. PEP 3117 is a joke, right?)
Note date of creation.
--
Michael Hoffman
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Paul McGuire wrote:
> Python is not VB and Python is not Java and Python is not Ruby and
> Python is not any other language that is not Python.
As someone who's written in too many programming languages over
a long career, I'm quite pleased with Python as a programming
language. It's straigh
21 matches
Mail list logo
