|
|
|
|
|
|
by jack9
3433 days ago
|
|
|
> I was taken back by this rather harsh treatment of Python. I am taken aback by the evangelical tone of Python enthusiasts, where is has warts intentionally maintained by the creator in the form of missing features. If you want speed you go to any other scripting language (other than Ruby). I agree Python is mostly sane and naiively productive. That being said, it's a result of the syntax. Transpiling it to another language like Google did, shows that the underlying technology is not worth much. > what languages do you think are better in comparison Better in what way? PHP, Go, Pony, Javascript all have these features and the problems with the languages are not that people don't understand when they come across a switch or map. |
|
|
Ruby has historically had the same issues. Most Pythonistas I know aren't so evangelical. It's mostly a question of how to go about integrating C/C++ code.
Many people complaining about the GIL (and the like) have some naive microbenchmark, don't understand the trade-offs/limitations of their runtime etc. That doesn't mean critique isn't important and required, but it's going to be better when it's properly researched and improves on the body of work out there (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-vMVdM8s).
> Transpiling it to another language like Google did, shows that the underlying technology is not worth much.
How is this any general indicator of the worth of the language?
It shows for some cases, that Google thought this was a worthwhile investment. Google has experimented for a long time with ways to improve how Python code can be run. They ran the Unladen Swallow project, but spent more time on LLVM issues at the time making it infeasible to continue the project.
They'll discontinue one path and try another. None of this is really a commentary from Google on CPython, the community, or the value that it has for most people. The people working on this stuff interact in a pretty friendly basis.