Python has gotten faster, but it’s still nowhere near what you expect from traditional compiled languages. It can’t be.
The trick to writing performant Python code is to get good (native) libraries and let it handle the heavy lifting.
For performance sensitive stuff, the fact that pure Python is very slow really matters. For stuff that’s not performance sensitive (that is, 99% of the code out there) it doesn’t really matter, but even then it’s better to be fast than to be slow.
Now this is not something I would ordinarily have a problem with. I use Python for a reason and it’s not performance. But if I end up writing Python like it’s rust, I might as well do rust and reap the (massive!!!) performance and memory profile benefits too while I’m at it.
My main issue is that you’re going through all that trouble and still get Python-level performance.
I really like Python, but there are better typed languages out there. Also, faster ones.
safe
Dude, the E. Coli roulette is half the excitement!
Yeah, I could totally tell it was the wrong translation but for some reason it struck me as really funny.
Einige derjenigen, die Arbeitskräfte einsetzen, sind dieselben, die Kreuze verbrennen
Nuclear technologies missed their window. The use cases where they are the best technical solution now are extremely limited, and that means you can get the investment going to improve them.
It’s a curiosity now.
There’s an alternative timeline where Chernobyl doesn’t happen and we decarbonize by leaning on nuclear in the nineties, then transition to renewables about now. But that’s not our timeline. And if it were, it would be in the past now.