The problem is that Python doesn't provide enough information to produce blazing fast code. It's a bit too high level.
I am interested in how often this as actually true. My impression is that a lot of Python idioms could be translated into C++14, and they would be _unwieldy_ but could, in principle, be translated without losing information. (With the caveat that it's only fast if you can prove at compile time what the types can be, which is why I mention static typing: that 90% of the time, you DO know the types at compile time.) But I've not actually tested this idea. I'm not sure if it would be practical to actually DO that or not (it might take as much effort as all the decades spent developing C compilers).
no subject
Date: 2014-12-07 04:28 pm (UTC)I am interested in how often this as actually true. My impression is that a lot of Python idioms could be translated into C++14, and they would be _unwieldy_ but could, in principle, be translated without losing information. (With the caveat that it's only fast if you can prove at compile time what the types can be, which is why I mention static typing: that 90% of the time, you DO know the types at compile time.) But I've not actually tested this idea. I'm not sure if it would be practical to actually DO that or not (it might take as much effort as all the decades spent developing C compilers).