From: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
To: Eli Carter <eli.carter@inet.com>
Cc: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@transmeta.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 16:27:46 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030205002746.GA10206@work.bitmover.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E405207.8080207@inet.com>
> Ok, dumb, (and probably flamebait) question time: I read your list and
> thought "In C? Why not Python?" I'm guessing speed issues?
Scripting languages are unacceptable for products. Flat out unacceptable.
I spoke to Chip when he was running the perl effort, his answer was "if
you are worried about new releases of perl breaking your scripts, ship
your own version of perl". I spoke with Guido or some other Python
luminary and he said the same thing.
For something which a company has to support, it needs to be a compiled
language with fairly minimal dependencies. Otherwise the customer
upgrades and the tool breaks.
Don't get me wrong, I love perl (well, perl 4, perl 5 got a bit weird
for my tastes but some people seem to like it) and python looks cool as
well. They are great for prototyping but they are just useless as a
application platform. Our support costs would be through the roof.
Before the inevitable flameage, please consider that we have to support
people who insist on using all sorts of weird things. Richard Gooch
maintains his own a.out based linux distribution, for example. Do we
get to tell him to upgrade? Nope. And it just gets worse from there.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-02-05 0:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 84+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-03 23:05 gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-03 23:22 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-03 23:31 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04 0:43 ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 13:42 ` Richard B. Johnson
2003-02-04 14:20 ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 6:54 ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-04 7:13 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 12:25 ` Adrian Bunk
2003-02-04 15:51 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 16:27 ` [Lse-tech] " Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 17:40 ` Patrick Mansfield
2003-02-04 17:55 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 9:54 ` Bryan Andersen
2003-02-04 15:46 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 19:09 ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 19:35 ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 19:44 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-04 20:11 ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:20 ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 20:45 ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 21:44 ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-05 7:15 ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 10:36 ` Andreas Schwab
2003-02-05 11:41 ` Denis Vlasenko
2003-02-05 12:20 ` Dave Jones
2003-02-05 13:10 ` [Lse-tech] " Dipankar Sarma
2003-02-05 15:30 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-04 21:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 21:54 ` John Bradford
2003-02-04 22:11 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-04 23:27 ` Timothy D. Witham
2003-02-04 23:21 ` Larry McVoy
2003-02-04 23:42 ` b_adlakha
2003-02-05 0:19 ` Andy Pfiffer
2003-02-04 23:51 ` Jakob Oestergaard
2003-02-05 1:03 ` Hugo Mills
2003-02-10 22:26 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2003-02-10 23:28 ` J.A. Magallon
2003-02-04 23:51 ` Eli Carter
2003-02-05 0:27 ` Larry McVoy [this message]
2003-02-06 20:42 ` Paul Jakma
2003-02-05 3:03 ` Tomas Szepe
2003-02-05 6:03 ` Mark Mielke
2003-02-07 16:09 ` Pavel Machek
2003-02-04 10:57 ` Padraig
2003-02-04 13:11 ` Helge Hafting
2003-02-04 13:29 ` Jörn Engel
2003-02-04 14:05 ` P
2003-02-04 20:36 ` Herman Oosthuysen
2003-02-04 12:20 ` [Lse-tech] " Dave Jones
2003-02-04 15:50 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-10 12:13 ` Momchil Velikov
2003-02-06 15:42 ` gcc -O2 vs gcc -Os performance Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 15:51 ` [Lse-tech] " Andi Kleen
2003-02-06 17:48 ` Alan Cox
2003-02-06 17:06 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 20:38 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 21:32 ` John Bradford
2003-02-06 22:12 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 22:58 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:16 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 23:59 ` Martin J. Bligh
2003-02-06 23:17 ` Roger Larsson
2003-02-06 23:33 ` Martin J. Bligh
[not found] <1044385759.1861.46.camel@localhost.localdomain.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <200302041935.h14JZ69G002675@darkstar.example.net.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <b1pbt8$2ll$1@penguin.transmeta.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2003-02-04 22:05 ` gcc 2.95 vs 3.21 performance Andi Kleen
2003-02-04 22:14 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-05 10:04 ` Pavel Janík
2003-02-05 20:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-06 15:00 ` Horst von Brand
2003-02-04 22:59 ` Jeff Muizelaar
2003-02-04 23:12 ` b_adlakha
2003-02-05 8:41 ` Horst von Brand
2003-02-05 19:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2003-02-05 19:22 ` Randy.Dunlap
2003-02-05 19:24 ` John Bradford
2003-02-06 7:02 ` Neil Booth
[not found] ` <courier.3E423112.00007219@softhome.net>
[not found] ` <20030206212218.GA4891@daikokuya.co.uk>
2003-02-07 10:31 ` b_adlakha
2003-02-07 18:46 ` Horst von Brand
2003-02-07 21:49 ` Neil Booth
2003-02-10 2:14 ` Jeff Garzik
2003-02-10 9:19 ` Tomas Szepe
[not found] <120432836@toto.iv>
2003-02-05 2:45 ` Peter Chubb
[not found] <200302052021.h15KLrXv000881@darkstar.example.net>
2003-02-05 20:28 ` b_adlakha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030205002746.GA10206@work.bitmover.com \
--to=lm@bitmover.com \
--cc=eli.carter@inet.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@transmeta.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox