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