----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 2@dont-email.me> 6242aae6
@REPLY:
<75e8152e-d5a2-41ad-892c-cfe6f5f6e659n@googlegroups.com> 5c4777a2
@REPLYADDR Gary Scott <garylscott@sbcglobal.net>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Gary Scott
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: 2@dont-email.me>
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
<75e8152e-d5a2-41ad-892c-cfe6f5f6e659n@googlegroups.com>
@TZUTC: -0500
@PID: Mozilla Thunderbird
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
On 8/29/2023 6:30 PM, gah4 wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 29, 2023 at 8:41:52 AM UTC-7, Gary Scott wrote:
https://techxplore.com/news/2023-08-scientists-open-source-tool-language-python.
html
>
> Seems to say that Python is 60000 time slower than other languages.
> People must be writing bad Python code.
>
> The whole idea behind languages like Python, R, Matlab, and Mathematica,
> is that you use the features built into the language. Things
like matrix operations.
>
> Inversion of a large matrix (even though you shouldn`t do that) should be only
> slightly slower than in Fortran. If you use the built-in operator.
>
> If you write matrix inversion code in Python, it will be slow. Don`t do that.
>
A lot of programmers that use Python are "naive". That is often the
case with interpreted languages, almost by design.
--- Mozilla Thunderbird
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5015/255 5019/40 5020/715
848 1042 4441 12000
SEEN-BY: 5030/49 1081 5058/104 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441