5 ms·
CPython is obviously the way it is on purpose, by design, and quite successful. Yet I still find it ironic that this "slow" interpreter is written in C, the go
by a3n 9y ago
CPython is obviously the way it is on purpose, by design, and quite successful. Yet I still find it ironic that this "slow" interpreter is written in C, the go to, general purpose, "low level and a half" fast language, and that "C" is right there in the name. Not knowing anything else, I might expect a project with "C" at the front of the name would be at least fast-ish, and that the naming was intended to signal that.
Not a complaint, just an observation.
- wolf550e 9y agoWhat? No. The c in cpython was not meant to signal performance. The c was added after alternative implementations were created to mean "the original/reference implementation". Python's competitors perl ruby and php are likewise interpreters implemented in c and are equally slow. Anyway, what alternative did they have to implement a bytecode interpreter? C is portable and fast enough, especially with computed goto extension.
- a3n 9y ago> The c in cpython was not meant to signal performance. I thought it was clear that I understood that: "Not knowing anything else, I might expect ..." I guess not.