January 11, 2005
Python in Computer Weekly
Clarity, not speed, makes Python an ideal language for beginners, according to Computer Weekly.
This is far from the worst Python-for-pointy-haireds that I've seen, and it's far better than nothing. Computer Weekly is very well read in the UK - I'd say that more IT pros read it than not.
It's not the first article I've seen that implies that Python is slow to run, though. In practise, everything that I write is I/O-bound (either network or disk), and Python is at least as fast as any other language in this case. It can be a bit slower than compiled languages when it comes to number-crunching and tight loops, it's true, but that doesn't bother me at all.
Also, they do bang on about Python being a good language for beginners, which it is, but they mention only in passing that it's just as good for advanced programmers.
Posted to Python by Simon Brunning at January 11, 2005 01:46 PM
I wouldn't say the article (which I've only really skimmed) is that bad. Certainly, compared to Computerworld in various territories, it seems fairly well written. Meanwhile, Computerworld just seems to be full of dull "niche geek meets suit" storage advertorials, vague speculative commentaries by analysts who really should be paying their customers for advice, and low-intellect potshots from attention seeking columnists, all combined with news of how some public sector project has blown its budget while corporate cheerleaders get to write in about "how we can avoid this in future" whilst whoring their employer's products.
It was a nuisance even getting it for free.
"It can be a bit slower than compiled languages when it comes to number-crunching and tight loops, it's true"
Even with Psyco, I've found common cases when it was 300 times slower than C++. "a bit"? Stay honest!