Mark Shannon writes:
> On 13/05/2021 5:32 am, Terry Reedy wrote:
> > The claim that starts the Motivation section, "Python is widely
> > acknowledged as slow.", has multiple problems.
> How would you rephrase it, bearing in mind that needs to be short?
We can make CPython run significantly faster, at a reasonable cost
in developer time, without otherwise changing the sematics of the
language.
If you have good justification for saying "as fast as the best JS/Lua
implementations" or whatever, feel free to substitute that for
"significantly faster".
And now this:
> It is a legitimate concern that CPython is bad for the environment,
It is not.
I do this for a living (5 hours in a research hackathon just this
afternoon on a closely related topic[1]), and I assure you that such
"concern" is legitimate only as a matter of purely speculative
metaphysics. We don't have the data to analyze the possibilities, and
we don't even have the models if we did have the data.
The implied model that gets you from your tautology to "concern" is
just plain wrong -- work to be done is not independent of the cost of
doing it[2], not to mention several other relevant variables, and cannot
be made so in a useful model.
> and hopefully make it less of a concern.
It is only a concern in the Tucker Carlson "just asking questions"
mode of "concern". Really -- it's *that* bad.
> We want people to be able to write code in Python and have it
> perform at the level they would get from a good Javascript or lua
> implementation.
So say that. Nothing to be ashamed of there!
The work you propose to do is valuable for a lot of valid reasons, the
most important of which is "because we can and there's no immediate
downside".[3] Stick to those.
Footnotes:
[1] Yoshida, M., Turnbull, S.J. Voluntary provision of environmental
offsets under monopolistic competition. Int Tax Public Finance
(2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-020-09630-5.
Paywalled, available from the author, rather specialized, though. Two
works-in-progress are much more closely related, but I have a paranoid
coauthor so can't say more at this time. :-)
[2] As Steven d'Aprano points out colorfully, using Parkinson's Law.
[3] Look up Braess's Paradox for a classic and mathematically simple
example of how reducing cost "with no immediate downside" can increase
expense "once everything works itself out."
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/XK2R7ZUPWTXG4ZDTTE2KB52TFYE6KXEH/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
