4 ms·

This is why I don't believe in writing libraries in the abstracted language they're intended for. I'd rather see them coded in C, or better, optimized C, or bet

This is why I don't believe in writing libraries in the abstracted language they're intended for. I'd rather see them coded in C, or better, optimized C, or better, pure asm written by someone who knows what they're doing. You don't need python to be good at searching, you need to use it to leverage fast libraries. This is notably a critical failing of other abstracted programming languages. (I won't name names, I don't want to be piked here Vlad Tepes style.)

MaysonL 18y ago
Languages are not implementations. Algorithms are more productive of speed than language choice. It is highly likely that in five years, Python code will run competitively as fast as C, assuming that either language is still in use.
- alnayyir 18y ago
  Python code will run competitively as fast as C <--- that's highly unlikely that will happen in 50 years, let alone five years. Have you been keeping track of programming history at all? Lisp isn't as fast as fortran or C, and it's been around for 50 years. You're delusional, I'm sorry.
  - MaysonL 18y ago
    Well... we'll have to agree to disagree - and you really should check out the state of the art in Lisp compilers these days. PS - I've been programming since before Lisp was a teenager.
Daniel_Newby 18y ago
"I'd rather see them coded in C, or better, optimized C, or better, pure asm written by someone who knows what they're doing." In most markets, the greatest source of economic value is high-level optimization of the whole system. If the Gods should bless you with overwhelming market demand, then you hire some bitheads to do micro-optimization (or just throw hardware at the problem). This especially includes search. Plenty of systems have search engines that are lightning fast and come with all the bells and whistles. And are nearly useless because they (1) prioritize by criteria that are wrong for the users, and (2) are written in impenetrable optimized low-level languages that the system maintainer lacks the skills to customize.

MaysonL 18y ago

Languages are not implementations. Algorithms are more productive of speed than language choice. It is highly likely that in five years, Python code will run competitively as fast as C, assuming that either language is still in use.

alnayyir 18y ago
Python code will run competitively as fast as C <--- that's highly unlikely that will happen in 50 years, let alone five years. Have you been keeping track of programming history at all? Lisp isn't as fast as fortran or C, and it's been around for 50 years. You're delusional, I'm sorry.
- MaysonL 18y ago
  Well... we'll have to agree to disagree - and you really should check out the state of the art in Lisp compilers these days. PS - I've been programming since before Lisp was a teenager.

Daniel_Newby 18y ago

"I'd rather see them coded in C, or better, optimized C, or better, pure asm written by someone who knows what they're doing." In most markets, the greatest source of economic value is high-level optimization of the whole system. If the Gods should bless you with overwhelming market demand, then you hire some bitheads to do micro-optimization (or just throw hardware at the problem). This especially includes search. Plenty of systems have search engines that are lightning fast and come with all the bells and whistles. And are nearly useless because they (1) prioritize by criteria that are wrong for the users, and (2) are written in impenetrable optimized low-level languages that the system maintainer lacks the skills to customize.