On May 21, 11:59 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Strange enough, no one calls Java or C# 'interpreted languages', while
> they (or, to be more exact, their reference implementations) both use
> the same byte-code/VM scheme[1].
Java interprets the bytecode in a virtual machine by default. Only
On May 21, 12:01 pm, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> > C has proven very difficult to optimize, particularly because pointer
> > aliasing prevents efficient register allocation.
>
> Does this compare to optimizing something like Python ? (serious
> question, but I think I already know part of the an
I reply to myself!
>
> Boost.Python is also very known (but never tested by myself).
>
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_35_0/libs/python/doc/tutorial/doc/html/index.html
here the example. I know that it has been made to simplify the
CPython's use and this is based on CPython.
Frédéric
--
http://m
> By the way, is it possible (and easy) to call a C function from a
> Python program??
Use SWIG. It's easy, smart and beautiful. After that, you can call C/C+
+ from a lot of scripting languages such as python, R, etc
A lot of open sources projects already use it.
http://www.swig.org/tutorial.ht
sturlamolden a écrit :
On May 19, 10:42 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well... They do - they are called 'C compilers' !-) As Roel Schroven
mentioned - and he is at least partially right on this point - C has
been designed to make optimizing C compiler not to hairy to write.
Roel Schroeven a écrit :
Wow this resulted in far more reactions than I had expected ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On 19 mai, 15:30, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
terms) is not a prop
On May 17, 11:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> simplicity is very attractive.
>
> However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like
On May 19, 8:09 pm, Lou Pecora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
> > > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
> > > terms) is not a property of a language, but
On 18 Mai, 00:32, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe this is not the right forum, but maybe you can give me some
> hints or tips...
>
> Thank you in advance.
If Python doesn't run in production systems execution speed doesn't
matter much. What actually matters when *developing* non-t
On May 20, 3:37 pm, brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> seen this first hand. Getting results back the same day or sooner may be
> important. In cases such as this, I use C or C++... nothing else will
> do. Nothing else is as fast.
Right. Tell that to the Fortran community. And by the way:
http://
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Run time is not important until you are asked to scale to millions
>or billions of users or computations or large data sets. I've seen
>this first hand. Getting results back the same day or sooner may be
>important. In cases such a
Wow this resulted in far more reactions than I had expected ...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schreef:
On 19 mai, 15:30, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
terms) is not a property of a language, but a
On May 20, 7:24 pm, Grant Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://docs.python.org/lib/module-ctypes.html
>
Also see Cython (or Pyrex if you prefer the original). With Cython it
is easy to call C functions, but Cython also alleviates the need for C
to a great extent. The advantage of Cython
On 2008-05-20, Ivan Illarionov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:07:06 -0700, Vicent Giner wrote:
> [...]
>>
>> By the way, is it possible (and easy) to call a C function from a Python
>> program??
>
> Yes.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/9d47913a265c348a
On May 19, 10:42 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well... They do - they are called 'C compilers' !-) As Roel Schroven
> mentioned - and he is at least partially right on this point - C has
> been designed to make optimizing C compiler not to hairy to write.
C has proven very
On May 19, 8:07 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, is it possible (and easy) to call a C function from a
> Python program??
Yes it is. You can e.g. use ctypes for that.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
brad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Vicent Giner wrote:
>
>> The usual answer is that development time is more important than
>> running time.
>
> This depends. Run time is not important until you are asked to scale
> to millions or billions of users or computations or large data
> sets. I've seen
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C OTOH was designed to be compiled to assembly code (or directly to
> machine code) and as a result there are no (or virtually) no
> implementations that interpret C or compile it to bytecode.
Have you considered Microsoft's C/C++ compiler targetted a
Vicent Giner wrote:
The usual answer is that development time is more important than running time.
This depends. Run time is not important until you are asked to scale to
millions or billions of users or computations or large data sets. I've
seen this first hand. Getting results back the sa
On Mon, 19 May 2008 11:07:06 -0700, Vicent Giner wrote:
[...]
>
> By the way, is it possible (and easy) to call a C function from a Python
> program??
Yes.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.python/msg/9d47913a265c348a
-- Ivan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On Mon, 19 May 2008 08:53:11 -0700, Henrique Dante de Almeida wrote:
> On May 19, 6:52 am, Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Henrique Dante de Almeida a écrit :
>>
>> > On May 17, 7:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> Hello.
>>
>> (snip)
>> >> However, it is usuall
Henrique Dante de Almeida a écrit :
On May 19, 5:35 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The situation would be simpler if there were good well-known toolkits
for optimization in python (like numpy for matrix operations), but
that's not the case.
There's at least Psyco (if you're
On May 19, 5:25 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's at least one (possibly incomplete) C interpreter. FWIW, it
> would not be harder (and possibly simpler) to write a byte-code+VM
> based C implementation than it is to write CPython, Jython or
You may (right now, readily,
On May 19, 5:46 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 19 mai, 17:53, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> > Yes, I was actually referring to statically typed JIT-compiled
> > languages. Sorry about that, blame the beers that entered my digestive
> >
On May 19, 5:35 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The situation would be simpler if there were good well-known toolkits
> > for optimization in python (like numpy for matrix operations), but
> > that's not the case.
>
> There's at least Psyco (if you're willing and able to res
On May 19, 3:07 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Yes, of course, but that should mean that I have to do it better, in
> the programming step (I would have to re-program or re-implement my
> algorithm). And I think the problem would be the same in any other
> language, wouldn't it?
On 19 mai, 17:53, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(snip)
> Yes, I was actually referring to statically typed JIT-compiled
> languages. Sorry about that, blame the beers that entered my digestive
> system that night. :-P
for beer in beers:
if beer.entered_henrique_digestiv
On 19 mai, 20:07, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 19, 6:11 pm, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
(snip)
> > The situation would be simpler if there were good well-known toolkits
> > for optimization in python (like numpy for matrix operations), but
> > that'
On 19 mai, 18:11, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 19, 7:03 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Vicent Giner a écrit :
>
> > > Hello.
>
> > > I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> > > simplicity is very attractive
On 19 mai, 15:30, Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
>
> > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
> > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
> > implementation of a language.
>
> > 2/ actually, all known Python
Vicent Giner wrote:
Thank you very much for all the answers I've got.
As far as I have understood, Python can be a good alternative, or, at
least, a reasonable choice.
I intend to design new algorithms for a kind of Optimization problems,
and then I have to implement them and show/prove that th
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Roel Schroeven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
> > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
> > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
> > implementation of a language.
> >
> > 2/ actually
On May 19, 6:11 pm, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On May 19, 7:03 am, Bruno Desthuilliers
> I'm pretty sure about that: when the algorithms take 4 hours to test
> a single execution, you value processor time.
Yes, of course, but that should mean that I have to do it be
Thank you very much for all the answers I've got.
As far as I have understood, Python can be a good alternative, or, at
least, a reasonable choice.
I intend to design new algorithms for a kind of Optimization problems,
and then I have to implement them and show/prove that they are good
enough, in
Vicent Giner wrote:
Hello.
I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
simplicity is very attractive.
However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like C, in that
sense.
...
I programmed several
On May 19, 7:03 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Vicent Giner a écrit :
>
> > Hello.
>
> > I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> > simplicity is very attractive.
>
> > However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> > interpreted programming language
On May 19, 6:52 am, Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
> Henrique Dante de Almeida a écrit :
>
> > On May 17, 7:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hello.
>
> (snip)
> >> However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> >> interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not
Roel Schroeven wrote:
> Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
>> 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
>> terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
>> implementation of a language.
>>
>> 2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
>>
Bruno Desthuilliers schreef:
1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
implementation of a language.
2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
You keep saying that, and in theory
Tim Golden a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
In curiosity, did your "actually" mean, in the French sense, "at the
moment" or, in the English sense, "in contrast to something stated
earlier"? Or maybe both?
I mainly inte
Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
In curiosity, did your "actually" mean, in the French sense, "at the moment"
or, in the English sense, "in contrast to something stated earlier"? Or maybe both?
TJG
--
http://mail.python.org/mailma
Vicent Giner a écrit :
Hello.
I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
simplicity is very attractive.
However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
interpreted programming language
cf my answer to you and Henrique on this.
I am working on my PhD T
Henrique Dante de Almeida a écrit :
On May 17, 7:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello.
(snip)
However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like C, in that
sense.
(snip)
I guess that python is not a good la
Vicent Giner wrote:
Hello.
I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
simplicity is very attractive.
However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like C, in that
sense.
I am working on my PhD Thesis,
On May 18, 4:20 pm, David C. Ullrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are you going to be doing research _about_ the
> algorithms in question or is it going to be research
> _using_ these algorithms to draw conclusions
> about other things?
>
> Most of the replies seem to be assuming the latter.
> If
On Sat, 17 May 2008 15:32:29 -0700 (PDT), Vicent Giner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hello.
>
>I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
>simplicity is very attractive.
>
>However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
>interpreted programming language I mea
On May 18, 5:46 am, "inhahe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The numbers I heard are that Python is 10-100 times slower than C.
Only true if you use Python as if it was a dialect of Visual Basic. If
you use the right tool, like NumPy, Python can be fast enough. Also
note that Python is not slower th
Along with numpy & scipy there is some more Python scientific soft
worse to be mentioned:
http://scipy.org/Topical_Software
http://pypi.python.org/pypi?:action=browse&show=all&c=385
On 18 Тра, 06:25, Henrique Dante de Almeida <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> once I
> looked for linear programming too
On May 18, 5:32 am, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> simplicity is very attractive.
>
> However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like
what little I know:
The numbers I heard are that Python is 10-100 times slower than C. So use
Python if you can wait 10-100 times longer. Although it won't really be
that slow using numpy and/or psyco.
Python seems to have a really extensive reportoire of modules available for
it. Although
On May 17, 7:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> simplicity is very attractive.
>
> However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like
On May 18, 12:32 am, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * As far as I understand, the fact that Python is not a compiled
> language makes it slower than C, when performing huge amounts of
> computations within an algorithm or program.
First of all: whatever you do, use NumPy for all numeri
>
> The usual answer is that development
> time is more important than running time.
OK, thank you for your answer.
I just wanted to check if it was a naive idea trying to use Python
instead of C in order to implement my own algorithms, and other
research-related code.
>
> Since you are likely
On May 17, 5:32 pm, Vicent Giner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
> simplicity is very attractive.
>
> However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
> interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like
Vicent Giner wrote:
Hello.
I am new to Python. It seems a very interesting language to me. Its
simplicity is very attractive.
However, it is usually said that Python is not a compiled but
interpreted programming language —I mean, it is not like C, in that
sense.
I am working on my PhD Thesis,
55 matches
Mail list logo
