David Hutto, 21.12.2010 10:19:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:17 AM, David Hutto wrote:
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Note that it's not unlikely that this is actually *slower* than using a
real XML parser:
Or a 'real' language like C or C++ maybe to increase, or in Python's
case, bypass, the interpreter?
While this may be a little faster than Python code (although I suspect that
benchmarking is needed to prove either way), I doubt that it's worth the
overhead in code writing. If I can write a couple of lines of Python code
that are easy to validate and almost as fast as C code, why would I want to
write and debug hundreds of lines of code in C or C++, just to see that I
need to tune my benchmark to notice the difference?
Don't get me wrong, I love the simplicity too, but if you know you
really do need it along the way, then you should start thinking ahead
of the easy, and toward the harder code for your project. Just as
every language has it's place, so does Python.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil. That totally applies when
choosing a programming language.
If I want to write a programming language, It might not be the best
idea to have a labguage needed for speed based on Python, I should
maybe use wha it's based on, or refine my own optimizations, just to
be a little clearer about my perspective.
Being clearer would certainly help in understanding your postings.
Stefan
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
