18 ms·

So much effort has gone into optimizing the worlds-most-ok language.

cutierust 4y ago
I am counting on Julia to remove this language from the fac e of earth. Fun fact, when the creator announced python beta he clearly said it was for building prototypes
- scintill76 4y ago
  I've no love lost for Python, but in regards to what Python's creator may have said at the beginning, I'm reminded of the Linux announcement -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional" and "NOT portable", "probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks."
- anakaine 4y ago
  Julia sounds wonderful on paper, but as soon as I want to work with the sorts of data that is my bread and butter, the ecosystem in Julia is empty, whilst Python is fully featured. Hard sell without huge investment.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    Which field is this? I find for my field it's really full featured, the part that is missing is the production-level stability and deployment process.
- incrudible 4y ago
  Nah. You can always count on the scientific community producing tools that software engineers will scoff at. The opposite is not true.
  - jakobnissen 4y ago
    Spoken with the arrogance of a true software engineer. It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Like, go to any bioinformatics conference and you will find these people. "What do you mean I can't just use a database of clinical pathogens to make a tool that generalises to all bacteria?"
    - ghostwriter 4y ago
      > It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Another thing that is common in science is scientists that do not know generic college-grade maths, which lays way before domain specialization: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_claiming_to_have_invented_a_way_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_...
    - incrudible 4y ago
      It is also common in science to solve problems by producing unmaintainable write-only code and managing dependencies by bundling up the entire universe into one enormous distribution. This approach works for science, not for software engineering in general. Hence, we do not adopt it. The problem of a lack of understanding of the domain exists in all domains, but many scientists are particularly inept at expressing their precious ideas in terms that an ordinary person could hope to comprehend.
    - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
      Mh, I read the parent's post as: "You can count on science producing things that software engineers will complain about (and therefore use). But it's rare for science to use stuff produced by software engineers at all, and hence there's no complaint that way"
jakobnissen 4y ago
It's bizarre. I don't think it's an exaggeration that it's the 10th project I've heard about to speed up Python. Seriously, use a faster language. If you need a performant fork of Python, you're using the wrong tool for the job.
- actionfromafar 4y ago
  There isn't much inherent in the language design which dictates it must be very slow, though. It's mostly a result of the canonical implementation.
  - yegle 4y ago
    To have different implementations we first need a "Python language specification" which doesn't exist. All other implementations have to be compatible with CPython to increase their chance of getting wider adoptions.
  - pjmlp 4y ago
    Indeed see Smalltalk, SELF, Common Lisp.
  - bakal 4y ago
    Then how come that there have been so many forks focused on speed yet none has managed to get good enough?
    - anakaine 4y ago
      Good enough in what way, specifically? Python is exceptionally popular not because of speed, but because of its wide compatibility, extensive list of maintained libraries, good learning paths, and most likely because its fast enough for most things. Every iteration of Python for some time now has added a not insignificant speed boost. It's not as fast as C, and nor will it be given how it works, but it certainly is fast enough for a great many situations and tasks. All of the above doesn't make it the right tool for every job. Sometimes you need to hit a nail, and you don't have a hammer but you do have a lump of hardwood. And in that situation, you make an assessment if in the long term you need to hit more nails regularly so you invest in a hammer, or just occasionally and you're ok with the lump of wood. It's subjective. So is it good enough? Good enough for what?
blast 4y ago
Have I got a Twitter thread for you: https://twitter.com/stylewarning/status/1571585280217579521 https://twitter.com/stylewarning/status/1571585280217579521 What boggles my mind is that Python has had billions of dollars of direct and indirect investment, with participation from every nook and cranny of the software syndicate—academia and industry—yet... this is all you get.
- BiteCode_dev 4y ago
  As the answer to the tweet says: - it didn't get billions of dollar of investment - it was born 30 years ago in a different time and carry the weight of those decisions and legacy - it only got serious focus and investments the last decade, while alternative got 100 times more - "this is all you get" downplay the enormous qualities of python to focus only on what's wrong with it. It never was in a situation to have success by default, it gained market share because it was good. No monopoly on the browser, no jump start at the begining of the web like php, no .net style founding by a giant. Somehow, the author must ignore some inherant good stuff to the language.

I am counting on Julia to remove this language from the fac e of earth. Fun fact, when the creator announced python beta he clearly said it was for building prototypes

scintill76 4y ago
I've no love lost for Python, but in regards to what Python's creator may have said at the beginning, I'm reminded of the Linux announcement -- "just a hobby, won't be big and professional" and "NOT portable", "probably never will support anything other than AT-harddisks."
anakaine 4y ago
Julia sounds wonderful on paper, but as soon as I want to work with the sorts of data that is my bread and butter, the ecosystem in Julia is empty, whilst Python is fully featured. Hard sell without huge investment.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  Which field is this? I find for my field it's really full featured, the part that is missing is the production-level stability and deployment process.
incrudible 4y ago
Nah. You can always count on the scientific community producing tools that software engineers will scoff at. The opposite is not true.
- jakobnissen 4y ago
  Spoken with the arrogance of a true software engineer. It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Like, go to any bioinformatics conference and you will find these people. "What do you mean I can't just use a database of clinical pathogens to make a tool that generalises to all bacteria?"
  - ghostwriter 4y ago
    > It's common in science to see computer scientists implement domain-specific software with a hopelessly naive understanding of the domain, leading to biased, wrong, or misinterpreted results. Another thing that is common in science is scientists that do not know generic college-grade maths, which lays way before domain specialization: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_claiming_to_have_invented_a_way_to/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1xfa8p/medical_paper_...
  - incrudible 4y ago
    It is also common in science to solve problems by producing unmaintainable write-only code and managing dependencies by bundling up the entire universe into one enormous distribution. This approach works for science, not for software engineering in general. Hence, we do not adopt it. The problem of a lack of understanding of the domain exists in all domains, but many scientists are particularly inept at expressing their precious ideas in terms that an ordinary person could hope to comprehend.
  - hnaccount_rng 4y ago
    Mh, I read the parent's post as: "You can count on science producing things that software engineers will complain about (and therefore use). But it's rare for science to use stuff produced by software engineers at all, and hence there's no complaint that way"

jakobnissen 4y ago

It's bizarre. I don't think it's an exaggeration that it's the 10th project I've heard about to speed up Python. Seriously, use a faster language. If you need a performant fork of Python, you're using the wrong tool for the job.

actionfromafar 4y ago
There isn't much inherent in the language design which dictates it must be very slow, though. It's mostly a result of the canonical implementation.
- yegle 4y ago
  To have different implementations we first need a "Python language specification" which doesn't exist. All other implementations have to be compatible with CPython to increase their chance of getting wider adoptions.
- pjmlp 4y ago
  Indeed see Smalltalk, SELF, Common Lisp.
- bakal 4y ago
  Then how come that there have been so many forks focused on speed yet none has managed to get good enough?
  - anakaine 4y ago
    Good enough in what way, specifically? Python is exceptionally popular not because of speed, but because of its wide compatibility, extensive list of maintained libraries, good learning paths, and most likely because its fast enough for most things. Every iteration of Python for some time now has added a not insignificant speed boost. It's not as fast as C, and nor will it be given how it works, but it certainly is fast enough for a great many situations and tasks. All of the above doesn't make it the right tool for every job. Sometimes you need to hit a nail, and you don't have a hammer but you do have a lump of hardwood. And in that situation, you make an assessment if in the long term you need to hit more nails regularly so you invest in a hammer, or just occasionally and you're ok with the lump of wood. It's subjective. So is it good enough? Good enough for what?

blast 4y ago

Have I got a Twitter thread for you: https://twitter.com/stylewarning/status/1571585280217579521 https://twitter.com/stylewarning/status/1571585280217579521 What boggles my mind is that Python has had billions of dollars of direct and indirect investment, with participation from every nook and cranny of the software syndicate—academia and industry—yet... this is all you get.

BiteCode_dev 4y ago
As the answer to the tweet says: - it didn't get billions of dollar of investment - it was born 30 years ago in a different time and carry the weight of those decisions and legacy - it only got serious focus and investments the last decade, while alternative got 100 times more - "this is all you get" downplay the enormous qualities of python to focus only on what's wrong with it. It never was in a situation to have success by default, it gained market share because it was good. No monopoly on the browser, no jump start at the begining of the web like php, no .net style founding by a giant. Somehow, the author must ignore some inherant good stuff to the language.