Talk:Python (programming language): Difference between revisions
imported>Boris Tsirelson (→High abstraction level: Run-time efficiency) |
imported>Johan Förberg (→Release information: new section) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Perhaps [[:Image:Python-cheat-sheet-v1.png]] may be of use here. [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | Perhaps [[:Image:Python-cheat-sheet-v1.png]] may be of use here. [[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC) | ||
== Release information == | |||
I just removed some very dated information (3-4 years old) about python's release history. I also removed the bit about python 3.0 being in alpha. | |||
How do people feel about including such lists of releases in the article? It seems likely to me that we will not be able to keep them up to date, why it might be better to remove them altogether. Could we put the article into a form which could stand for a few years without feeling dated? [[User:Johan A. Förberg|Johan A. Förberg]] 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:17, 1 March 2011
High abstraction level
I am missing a useful comment on the fact that since it is a very high-level interpreted scripting language, it is not as fast as a compiled program.
--Morten Juhl Johansen 06:42, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
- I think the issue is a little more complicated, because python code can theoretically be JIT-compiled, which would make it run at the speed of a natively compiled program. I'm not sure about the current state of compilers/VMs though. But the statement is indeed true of CPython. --Ion Alexandru Morega 07:05, 1 August 2007 (CDT)
- I have some, quite positive, personal experience in time-consuming Python programs; thus I add a section "Run-time efficiency". Boris Tsirelson 14:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Article name
This should be at Python (programming language), no? J. Noel Chiappa 10:07, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Illustrations?
Perhaps Image:Python-cheat-sheet-v1.png may be of use here. Daniel Mietchen 21:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Release information
I just removed some very dated information (3-4 years old) about python's release history. I also removed the bit about python 3.0 being in alpha.
How do people feel about including such lists of releases in the article? It seems likely to me that we will not be able to keep them up to date, why it might be better to remove them altogether. Could we put the article into a form which could stand for a few years without feeling dated? Johan A. Förberg 22:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)