...
You should never assume that one language is faster or slower than another. Execution speed is rarely a property of the language, but rather of the platform it is running on.
Stephan van Hulst wrote:You should never assume that one language is faster or slower than another. Execution speed is rarely a property of the language, but rather of the platform it is running on.
development time is generally lesser
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Holloway wrote: Java, for example, requires a lot more time to be spent up front, less afterwards. Interpreted languages are generally quick to code, but more likely to blow up later in the lifecycle.Execution speed, however is another matter.
Tim Holloway wrote: Java, for example, requires a lot more time to be spent up front, less afterwards. Interpreted languages are generally quick to code, but more likely to blow up later in the lifecycle.Execution speed, however is another matter.
...
Tim Holloway wrote:
But, as others have noted, a lot of the grunt work is not being done in Python, it's being directed By Python. If the heavy-duty work is in canned services running on a database server or GPU, then the speed of the Python part can dwindle to insignificance.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Stephan van Hulst wrote:I also don't think there's anything stopping anyone from writing a Python to assembly compiler.
I cringe a little when I read a Wikipedia page say something stupid like "interpreted language". Whether a language is interpreted or not is never a defining property of the language. All languages can be interpreted. All languages can be translated.
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Stephan van Hulst wrote:
I cringe a little when I read a Wikipedia page say something stupid like "interpreted language". Whether a language is interpreted or not is never a defining property of the language. All languages can be interpreted. All languages can be translated.
Monica Shiralkar wrote:But is it not so that interpreted languages are the ones which are compiled and run in a single step like Python and not like Java which is compiled first and then run.?
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
Tim Moores wrote:
Also, Java, is not"compiled and then run"
Tim Moores wrote:
compiled into class files, which at runtime will generally be compiled into machine code, or may sometimes be interpreted.
Monica Shiralkar wrote: It was my misconception that in Java, 1st step is compilation into intermediate stage , i.e bytecodes, and second step is that this bytecodes can now be interpreted by JVM to executable output on any platform. And that this is what the platform independence of Java is all about (compile once run anywhere).
Now I came to know that this is wrong and I will read further on this.
Tim Moores wrote:
Monica Shiralkar wrote: It was my misconception that in Java, 1st step is compilation into intermediate stage , i.e bytecodes, and second step is that this bytecodes can now be interpreted by JVM to executable output on any platform. And that this is what the platform independence of Java is all about (compile once run anywhere).
Now I came to know that this is wrong and I will read further on this.
No, that is not wrong, it is correct. But it is not "compiled and run", which is what you said, but rather "compiled and either interpreted or compiled again and then run".
The secret of how to be miserable is to constantly expect things are going to happen the way that they are "supposed" to happen.
You can have faith, which carries the understanding that you may be disappointed. Then there's being a willfully-blind idiot, which virtually guarantees it.
We can fix it! We just need some baling wire, some WD-40, a bit of duct tape and this tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, that will fit in a stocking
https://gardener-gift.com
|