funny slashdot quote regarding python 2.3 release

[Guyon Morée]

suspect that most time-critical code is not written in python.

Depends on which time is critical: CPU time, or programmer time?

-jcr

[Irmen de Jong]

Guyon Morée wrote:

suspect that most time-critical code is not written in python.

Depends on which time is critical: CPU time, or programmer time?

-jcr

Not only funny, but also a very *sound* question.

From your development company's point of view: the programmer time.
From the customer's point of view: depends. Usually CPU time.
But programmer's time means longer realization times and usually
higher cost (unless the project is fixed-price).

And let's not forget that time-critical code can very well be
written in a high-performance C extension module.

--Irmen

[John Hunter]

>>>>> "Irmen" == Irmen de Jong <ir***@nl.homeip.net> writes:

Irmen> And let's not forget that time-critical code can very well
Irmen> be written in a high-performance C extension module.

We recently had a physicist visit to show us how to do some
calculations and analyses he had developed, and he brought with him a
bunch of FORTRAN code he developed to do the calculations. At first I
wrapped them with f2py (unbelievably easy!) but then just decided to
reimplement them in Numeric since they were amenable to array
processing. I found that the Numeric version was about 20% faster
than the FORTRAN, in part because there were some inefficiencies in
his hand coded FORTRAN routines.

Which emphasizes that it's often better to use a well tested,
optimized extension than to code it yourself in a compiled language.
Why reinvent the wheel when you've got a brand new Michelin tire
sitting in the garage?

JDH

[John Machin]

John Hunter <jd******@ace.bsd.uchicago.edu> wrote in message news:<ma**********************************@python. org>...

Why reinvent the wheel when you've got a brand new Michelin tire
sitting in the garage?

Because you have a tyre and you don't have a wheel.

[Irmen de Jong]

John Hunter wrote:

>>"Irmen" == Irmen de Jong <ir***@nl.homeip.net> writes:

I don't know where that came from but that is most definately
not my email address...
processing. I found that the Numeric version was about 20% faster
than the FORTRAN, in part because there were some inefficiencies in
his hand coded FORTRAN routines.

Which emphasizes that it's often better to use a well tested,
optimized extension than to code it yourself in a compiled language.

If it's available, and can do the job, I agree 100% with you.
This will also, in the end, very likely result in a shorter
development time because you are not writing from scratch.

--Irmen