3 ms·

> Only if one is working with poor developers It's not about the developers, it's about the workload. Objectively, you can't write high performance multi-thre

> Only if one is working with poor developers It's not about the developers, it's about the workload. Objectively, you can't write high performance multi-threaded python. No one can; it's not possible; it's just slow. If you're rewriting your code in C++ so its not slow and pretending its python, you should just rewrite your code in C++. That's not writing fast python, it's writing C++. /shrug So python can easily be a bottle neck, regardless of how good your developers are, if you've picked it for a poor purpose: That's my point: Don't pick the wrong language for your task in the first place. ...and specifically python is the wrong choice for certain types of heavy lifting.

luord 9y ago
> it's about the workload. ... Why did you repeat yourself? I already told you I agreed with you on that. Is it something specific you want me to tell you? It's going to be easier if you tell me what you want to read, otherwise we'll keep going in circles. > Quite easily [...] poor purpose That's an immediate contradiction. Yes, if one picks the wrong tool, that tool often becomes the bottleneck; but for every other scenario in which the tool is alright, it takes poor developers for the tool to become a bottleneck. In my first comment I wrote that the language isn't the bottleneck, except for specific circumstances... And you took one of those specific circumstances and keep running with it. It's not a counterargument to my original point, if that's what you're trying to do.