Re: Baby X is bor nagain

On 25/06/2024 17:59, bart wrote:

On 25/06/2024 16:12, David Brown wrote:

On 25/06/2024 17:08, Scott Lurndal wrote:

BTW since you and DB are both keen on products like Python,

>
I have never posted anything about python here, that I recall.
>
I use it very infrequently.

 (It seemed to be a big part of that 8Mloc project of yours)
 

I got the impression that it was just for some scripting and automation.   I'm sure if Python were not available, he could happily have used Perl, or Lua, or Tcl.  I know that's the case for the Python code I often have for build automation.
(/I/ have other code for PC and server programs that are in Python, and I don't know of any other languages that would suit my needs and wants better there.  That's why I chose Python.  But I don't remember Scott talking about such code in Python.)

>
I /do/ use Python.  I use it when it is an appropriate language to use,   which is very different circumstances from when I use C (or C++). Different tools for different tasks.
>

 And yet neither of you are interested in answering my question, which was why its simplistic bytecode compiler is acceptable in this scenario, but would be considered useless if applied to C code.
 

It doesn't often matter that Python code is not efficient - that's not why people choose to use Python.  As always, faster is usually better when all other factors are equal, but it is rarely an important factor for Python code.  There are other ways to make Python programs fast - primarily by making sure that the real work is done by underlying C (or other compiled language) libraries.
There are oft-claimed rules about how programs spend 90% of their time in 10% of the code, or other proportions picked out of thin air.  Python is suitable for the 90% of the code where speed doesn't much matter but flexibility and ease of development are important, while C is suitable for the 10% of the code where speed is important and you're willing to pay the cost in development time.