(original) (raw)

About benchmarks ... I've been there and it's not benchmarks that decide whether something succeeds or fails.

(I found this old discussion which mentions FIB (also TAK, which is rather more brutal) ... do you recognize the language that got an implementation that was competitive with C in performance, was vastly more expressive, yet failed to catch on?)

OTOH, good performance is never a bad thing and sometimes is a necessity; so I applau this work.

On 28 January 2016 at 01:39, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 January 2016 at 18:30, INADA Naoki <songofacandy@gmail.com> wrote:
\> Please stop.
\>
\> I'm sorry about messing up this thread.

Not your fault at all! This is just a particular bugbear of mine,
since software architecture design (including appropriate programming
language selection) is an even more poorly understood discipline than
software development in general :)

\> I just wanted to represent why I'm very interested in Victor's efforts.

And thanks for posting that, as it is indeed cool that the
optimisation efforts currently being discussed may result in
performance improvements on some of the simplified micro-benchmarks
popular in programming language shootouts.

There's no way you could have anticipated the subsequent tangential
discussion on motives for contributing to open source projects, and
the impact that has on what we can reasonably expect from fellow
contributors.

Cheers,
Nick.

\--
Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/pludemann%40google.com