Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form of an ISO
Standard.

I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of programmers
hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to "define" the language.

Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.

/Rimmer

Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form
> of an ISO Standard.
>
> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of
> programmers hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to
> "define" the language.
>
> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>
> /Rimmer

Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
save the world.

You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.

On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form of an
>> ISO Standard.
>>
>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of programmers
>> hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to "define" the language.
>>
>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>
>> /Rimmer
>
> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
> save the world.
>
> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.

ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions" .. take
all the time you need.

/Rimmer

--
😎

On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form of an
>> ISO Standard.
>>
>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of programmers
>> hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to "define" the language.
>>
>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>
>> /Rimmer
>
> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
> save the world.
>
> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.
>

ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions" .. take
all the time you need.

/Rimmer

Leigh Johnston, aka Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
>> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the
>>> form of an ISO Standard.
>>>
>>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of
>>> programmers hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to
>>> "define" the language.
>>>
>>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>>
>>> /Rimmer
>>
>> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
>> save the world.
>>
>> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.
>
> ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions"
> .. take all the time you need.
>
> /Rimmer

http://i42.co.uk/stuff/ub.htm

Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer a écrit :
> On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
>> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the
>>> form of an ISO Standard.
>>>
>>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of
>>> programmers hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to
>>> "define" the language.
>>>
>>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>>
>>> /Rimmer
>>
>> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
>> save the world.
>>
>> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.
>>
>
> ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions"
> .. take all the time you need.
>
> /Rimmer

Cannot even manage your sock puppets, delusional crank?

On 11/05/2021 00:01, Python wrote:
> Leigh Johnston, aka Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
>>> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>>>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form of an
>>>> ISO Standard.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of
>>>> programmers hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to "define"
>>>> the language.
>>>>
>>>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>>>
>>>> /Rimmer
>>>
>>> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
>>> save the world.
>>>
>>> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.
>>
>> ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions" ..
>> take all the time you need.
>>
>> /Rimmer
>
> http://i42.co.uk/stuff/ub.htm

Care to point out the "delusion" (or "error" if you like) in my description of
undefined behaviour and C++?

Are you even aware of the concept of language safety? One of the reasons C++ is
classified as an unsafe language is because it has undefined behaviour and this
is not necessarily a bad thing.

I suggest you go back to school, dear, and try learning some computer science
and programming language theory.

/Rimmer

On 11/05/2021 00:02, Python wrote:
> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer a écrit :
>> On 10/05/2021 22:54, Python wrote:
>>> Leigh Johnston, aka Arnold Rimmer wrote:
>>>> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form of an
>>>> ISO Standard.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly don't wish to be beholden to the whims of a clique of
>>>> programmers hacking at an implementation (CPython) that is used to "define"
>>>> the language.
>>>>
>>>> Time you lot grew the f**k up and started doing things properly.
>>>>
>>>> /Rimmer
>>>
>>> Sure, and Leigh Johnston's sock puppets, who definitely grew up, will
>>> save the world.
>>>
>>> You're a delusional psycho, Leigh.
>>>
>>
>> ORLY, dear? Please give an example of one of these so called "delusions" ..
>> take all the time you need.
>>
>> /Rimmer
>
> Cannot even manage your sock puppets, delusional crank?

See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows f**k all
about programming language theory or why Python is so slow and C++ is so fast.

/Rimmer

Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow and
> C++ is so fast.

You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the IP
goes instantly there.

In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable to
find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost a
microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does

import os
print=os.system
print('ls -l')

Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult to
compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes dynamic
lookup unnecessary.

The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make very
useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as long
as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually ~50 ms
dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.

For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call out
for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is a very
successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing number-crunching can
use Python without problems because most of the time they are slamming
together library functions which are highly optimized, and they do not
care at all if the setup of the computation takes 1s or 10s, if it then
runs for an hour to do the actual computation in C++ code.

Christian

On 2021-05-12, Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow and
>> C++ is so fast.
>
> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic

[Excellent reply-Schnipp]

I agree with your post, but I'm afraid that the real issue here is
that Arnold just needs something to look down upon, so he can feel
superior.
--
Jan v/d Broek
balglaas@dds.nl

On 10/05/2021 23.33, Arnold Rimmer wrote:
> Python is toy and will remain toy until it is standardized in the form
> of an ISO Standard.

You mean like Java?

Even if it's a "toy", it's the most popular programming language:
https://pypl.github.io/PYPL.html

If ISO standardization is so important, why do you still use microsoft
windows? Maybe it's for you like to use a ToyOS? ;)

On 12/05/2021 08:41, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow
>> and C++ is so fast.
>
> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
> typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
> basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
> Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
> method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the IP
> goes instantly there.
>
> In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable to
> find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost a
> microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
> regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does
>
> import os
> print=os.system
> print('ls -l')
>
> Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult to
> compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes dynamic
> lookup unnecessary.
>
> The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make very
> useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
> programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
> check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as long
> as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually ~50 ms
> dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.
>
> For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call out
> for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is a very
> successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing number-crunching can
> use Python without problems because most of the time they are slamming
> together library functions which are highly optimized, and they do not
> care at all if the setup of the computation takes 1s or 10s, if it then
> runs for an hour to do the actual computation in C++ code.
>
>     Christian

You can be an apologist for Python's poor performance all you like but
that doesn't change the basic facts as asserted:

Javascript is only 4.5x slower and less efficient than C++ and Rust
whilst Python (presumably CPython) is 75x slower and less efficient than
C++ and Rust.

https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/05/3730357d-results-energy-time-and-memory-usage-screenshot-from-research-paper.png

You could even say that Python is the biggest contributor to climate
chanage of all the programming languages.

Python is simply a bag of sh1te from a performance point of view: 20x
slower and less efficient than Javascript is a joke unless you are happy
to relegate Python to the role of a "scripting language".

/Flibble

Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 12/05/2021 08:41, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
>>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
>>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow
>>> and C++ is so fast.
>>
>> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
>> typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
>> basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
>> Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
>> method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the
>> IP goes instantly there.
>>
>> In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable
>> to find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost
>> a microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
>> regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does
>>
>> import os
>> print=os.system
>> print('ls -l')
>>
>> Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult
>> to compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes
>> dynamic lookup unnecessary.
>>
>> The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make
>> very useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
>> programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
>> check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as
>> long as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually
>> ~50 ms dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.
>>
>> For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call
>> out for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is a
>> very successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing
>> number-crunching can use Python without problems because most of the
>> time they are slamming together library functions which are highly
>> optimized, and they do not care at all if the setup of the computation
>> takes 1s or 10s, if it then runs for an hour to do the actual
>> computation in C++ code.
>>
>>      Christian
>
> You can be an apologist for Python's poor performance all you like but
> that doesn't change the basic facts as asserted:
>
> Javascript is only 4.5x slower and less efficient than C++ and Rust
> whilst Python (presumably CPython) is 75x slower and less efficient than
> C++ and Rust.
>
> https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/05/3730357d-results-energy-time-and-memory-usage-screenshot-from-research-paper.png
>
>
> You could even say that Python is the biggest contributor to climate
> chanage of all the programming languages.
>
> Python is simply a bag of sh1te from a performance point of view: 20x
> slower and less efficient than Javascript is a joke unless you are happy
> to relegate Python to the role of a "scripting language".
>
> /Flibble

Nobody give a shit to your rants, Leigh Johnston. Get a life.

Or continue pretending having written a "universal" compiler while you
haven't. LOL.

On 12/05/2021 23:27, Python wrote:
> Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 12/05/2021 08:41, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>>> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
>>>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
>>>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow
>>>> and C++ is so fast.
>>>
>>> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
>>> typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
>>> basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
>>> Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
>>> method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the
>>> IP goes instantly there.
>>>
>>> In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable
>>> to find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost
>>> a microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
>>> regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does
>>>
>>> import os
>>> print=os.system
>>> print('ls -l')
>>>
>>> Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult
>>> to compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes
>>> dynamic lookup unnecessary.
>>>
>>> The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make
>>> very useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
>>> programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
>>> check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as
>>> long as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually
>>> ~50 ms dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.
>>>
>>> For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call
>>> out for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is
>>> a very successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing
>>> number-crunching can use Python without problems because most of the
>>> time they are slamming together library functions which are highly
>>> optimized, and they do not care at all if the setup of the
>>> computation takes 1s or 10s, if it then runs for an hour to do the
>>> actual computation in C++ code.
>>>
>>>      Christian
>>
>> You can be an apologist for Python's poor performance all you like but
>> that doesn't change the basic facts as asserted:
>>
>> Javascript is only 4.5x slower and less efficient than C++ and Rust
>> whilst Python (presumably CPython) is 75x slower and less efficient
>> than C++ and Rust.
>>
>> https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/05/3730357d-results-energy-time-and-memory-usage-screenshot-from-research-paper.png
>>
>>
>> You could even say that Python is the biggest contributor to climate
>> chanage of all the programming languages.
>>
>> Python is simply a bag of sh1te from a performance point of view: 20x
>> slower and less efficient than Javascript is a joke unless you are
>> happy to relegate Python to the role of a "scripting language".
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> Nobody give a shit to your rants, Leigh Johnston. Get a life.
>
> Or continue pretending having written a "universal" compiler while you
> haven't. LOL.

My universal compiler, neos, that can compile any programming language
(including Python) is a work-in-progress, dear.

/Flibble

On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 1:27:27 AM UTC+1, Mr Flibble wrote:
> On 12/05/2021 23:27, Python wrote:
> > Mr Flibble wrote:
> >> On 12/05/2021 08:41, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
> >>> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
> >>>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
> >>>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow
> >>>> and C++ is so fast.
> >>>
> >>> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
> >>> typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
> >>> basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
> >>> Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
> >>> method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the
> >>> IP goes instantly there.
> >>>
> >>> In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable
> >>> to find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost
> >>> a microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
> >>> regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does
> >>>
> >>> import os
> >>> print=os.system
> >>> print('ls -l')
> >>>
> >>> Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult
> >>> to compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes
> >>> dynamic lookup unnecessary.
> >>>
> >>> The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make
> >>> very useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
> >>> programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
> >>> check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as
> >>> long as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually
> >>> ~50 ms dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.
> >>>
> >>> For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call
> >>> out for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is
> >>> a very successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing
> >>> number-crunching can use Python without problems because most of the
> >>> time they are slamming together library functions which are highly
> >>> optimized, and they do not care at all if the setup of the
> >>> computation takes 1s or 10s, if it then runs for an hour to do the
> >>> actual computation in C++ code.
> >>>
> >>> Christian
> >>
> >> You can be an apologist for Python's poor performance all you like but
> >> that doesn't change the basic facts as asserted:
> >>
> >> Javascript is only 4.5x slower and less efficient than C++ and Rust
> >> whilst Python (presumably CPython) is 75x slower and less efficient
> >> than C++ and Rust.
> >>
> >> https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/05/3730357d-results-energy-time-and-memory-usage-screenshot-from-research-paper.png
> >>
> >>
> >> You could even say that Python is the biggest contributor to climate
> >> chanage of all the programming languages.
> >>
> >> Python is simply a bag of sh1te from a performance point of view: 20x
> >> slower and less efficient than Javascript is a joke unless you are
> >> happy to relegate Python to the role of a "scripting language".
> >>
> >> /Flibble
> >
> > Nobody give a shit to your rants, Leigh Johnston. Get a life.
> >
> > Or continue pretending having written a "universal" compiler while you
> > haven't. LOL.
> My universal compiler, neos, that can compile any programming language
> (including Python) is a work-in-progress, dear.
>
> /Flibble

Hello Mr. Flibble
your timing is impeccable! You should talk to Guido Van Rossum about neos,
he will be keen to help you I am sure.

https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/guido_van_rossum_cpython_3_11/

Please keep us informed as to your progress.

Thanks, J^n

On 13/05/2021 17:23, jkn wrote:
> On Thursday, May 13, 2021 at 1:27:27 AM UTC+1, Mr Flibble wrote:
>> On 12/05/2021 23:27, Python wrote:
>>> Mr Flibble wrote:
>>>> On 12/05/2021 08:41, Christian Gollwitzer wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.05.21 um 01:19 schrieb Arnold Rimmer:
>>>>>> See my other reply, person hiding behind the name "Python" who knows
>>>>>> f**k all about programming language theory or why Python is so slow
>>>>>> and C++ is so fast.
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't explain it at all. Python is slow because of the dynamic
>>>>> typing. When in C++, you call a method of an object, then this is
>>>>> basically an indirect call via a function pointer in in the vtable.
>>>>> Takes one or two memory lookups to get there. When calling a static
>>>>> method or regular function, it is a call of a static address and the
>>>>> IP goes instantly there.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Python, when you call a method it looks up the name in a hashtable
>>>>> to find out what to do next. Yes, this is crazy slow and takes almost
>>>>> a microsecond, 1000x times slower than in C++. Even for what would be
>>>>> regular "functions" in C++, just in case someone does
>>>>>
>>>>> import os
>>>>> print=os.system
>>>>> print('ls -l')
>>>>>
>>>>> Python does not use static function calls and is therefore difficult
>>>>> to compile, unless you restrict the language in a way that makes
>>>>> dynamic lookup unnecessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is that nobody cares most of the time. You can still make
>>>>> very useful and also performant Python programs with this crazy slow
>>>>> programming language. It is totally irrelevant if your GUI logic to
>>>>> check an input value runs in one microsecond or one millisecond, as
>>>>> long as there is no noticeable delay for the user, which is usually
>>>>> ~50 ms dealy, or even the reaction time of the user with ~500 ms.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the very small hot paths in the code, one can usually just call
>>>>> out for something written in a compiled language like C++ - numpy is
>>>>> a very successful example of that scheme. Scientists doing
>>>>> number-crunching can use Python without problems because most of the
>>>>> time they are slamming together library functions which are highly
>>>>> optimized, and they do not care at all if the setup of the
>>>>> computation takes 1s or 10s, if it then runs for an hour to do the
>>>>> actual computation in C++ code.
>>>>>
>>>>> Christian
>>>>
>>>> You can be an apologist for Python's poor performance all you like but
>>>> that doesn't change the basic facts as asserted:
>>>>
>>>> Javascript is only 4.5x slower and less efficient than C++ and Rust
>>>> whilst Python (presumably CPython) is 75x slower and less efficient
>>>> than C++ and Rust.
>>>>
>>>> https://storage.googleapis.com/cdn.thenewstack.io/media/2018/05/3730357d-results-energy-time-and-memory-usage-screenshot-from-research-paper.png
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You could even say that Python is the biggest contributor to climate
>>>> chanage of all the programming languages.
>>>>
>>>> Python is simply a bag of sh1te from a performance point of view: 20x
>>>> slower and less efficient than Javascript is a joke unless you are
>>>> happy to relegate Python to the role of a "scripting language".
>>>>
>>>> /Flibble
>>>
>>> Nobody give a shit to your rants, Leigh Johnston. Get a life.
>>>
>>> Or continue pretending having written a "universal" compiler while you
>>> haven't. LOL.
>> My universal compiler, neos, that can compile any programming language
>> (including Python) is a work-in-progress, dear.
>>
>> /Flibble
>
> Hello Mr. Flibble
> your timing is impeccable! You should talk to Guido Van Rossum about neos,
> he will be keen to help you I am sure.
>
> https://www.theregister.com/2021/05/13/guido_van_rossum_cpython_3_11/
>
> Please keep us informed as to your progress.

It seems Rossum has been reading my posts regarding Python's poor
performance. I wonder what Gollwitzer has got to say about my claims now?

/Flibble