On Sunday, November 10, 2013 4:56:38 PM UTC+8, Jorgen Grahn wrote: > On Sun, 2013-11-10, Chris Angelico wrote: > > > On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Roy Smith <r...@panix.com> wrote: > > >> On 09/11/2013 22:58, Chris Angelico wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > * Some languages are just fundamentally bad. I do not recommend ever > > >>> > writing production code in Whitespace, Ook, or Piet. > > >> > > >> One of the worst coding experiences I ever had was trying to build an > > >> app for a Roku media player. They have a home-grown language called > > >> BrightScript. Barf. > > > > > > And this is exactly why I was so strongly against the notion of > > > developing an in-house scripting language. It may be a lot of work to > > > evaluate Lua, Python, JavaScript, and whatever others we wanted to > > > try, but it's a *lot* less work than making a new language that > > > actually is worth using. > > > > Yes. I am baffled that people insist on doing the latter. Designing a > > limited /data/ language is often a good idea; designing something > > which eventually will need to become Turing-complete is not.
Python is designed with the VM interpreter to execute compiled byte codes. Of course, C/C++/JAVA are lower level languages not designed in this way. To remedy the efficient part, cython and C-extensions are available in Python. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list