Paolo Pantaleo wrote: > 2006/8/24, Ron Johnson <ron.l.johnson@cox.net>: >> The 1st link in his email describes how when a python chess player >> was (mechanically) converted to C++, the resulting app ran 10x faster. > That's it, compiled languages are fastar than interperted ones. This is true. However in modern computing most programs are sitting idle so scripted languages are not as ill-suited as they once were. Furthermore, in the case of Python, they readily admit that there are some things that a scripting language is poor for and, when those things are identified, it is encouraged to the author to port the slow code to a far faster compiled version which is called from within Python. In doing this one retains the speed of development that Python offers as well as the speed of execution that a compiled language offers. IE, code the 90-95% of the idle intensive stuff in Python, optimize the 5% intensive in C/C++. So, strictly speaking, Python is not ill-suited if one follows the advice of Python's own advocates. :) Write the interface in Python and have it call the engine written in C. -- Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream? PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do... -------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature