I completely agree with INADA.
It's like saying, because a specific crossroad features a higher
accident rate, *people need to change their driving behavior*.
*No!* People won't change and it's not necessary either. The crossroad
needs to be changed to be safer.
Same goes for Python. If it's slow using the very same piece of code
(even superficially), you better make the language faster.
Developers won't change and they won't change their code either. Just
not necessary.
Btw. it would be a great feature for Python 3 to be faster than Python
2. I've heard a lot of complaints of the scientific community that
Python is slow. Would Python 3 be significantly faster than Python 2,
that'll be a huge reason to upgrade (and would create pressure to
upgrade libs as well).
They are satisfied with Python so far, but would there be a language
equally readable/maintainable and 10x faster (of course proven by some
weird micro benchmarks - incomprehensible to most nervous subscribers to
this list), they would readily switch over. I for one hope that *Python
itself will be that language* in the foreseeable future. This is some
sort of marketing but also requires hard facts indeed.
Best,
Sven
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
