Why the fuck did they make this shit instead of making a

>>60064970
They now have a compiler that takes python source and turns into go bytecode. It's in their best interest to make python more performant because much of legacy YouTube is written with it.

Lookup grumpy go.

In short, DELET.

>>60064970
Holy shit this is awesome. Thanks anon!

>>60064970
Because you can't make a V8 engine for Python.
They and others tried and came to the conclusion that the semantics don't allow it.
Also >>60065151 isn't really faster, as to be expected of static compilation for dynamic languages. Neither are Cython or Nuitka when used with original Python semantics and Types.

that's why i love java

Golang is fantastic for networking applications. Not quite sure what else, though.

>>60064970
python needs to die, they can't even make their codes run in previous minor version. i don't know how it became so popular with shit versioning and missing legacy code support

>>60064970
V8 engions get poor gas milage. Its about about turbo v6 now

>>60064970
The python interpreter is GPL-licensed. Why would you ever touch that shit stain.

>>60064970
You can't work around the (presence or absence) of every language's features with an "engine".

And Python doesn't need to be made "better" in any particular sense anyhow. Yea, it's just a language for hackish scripts. It won't ever be good at everything.

So you just use other languages if you want something else.

>>60066574
Fuck off, Zed!

>hurr durring over one language
>does not pick the most suitable language for specific application

grow up

>>60066368
this

it's an excellent choice for severs side backends

>>60064970
>>60065151
>>60065748
pypy is pretty damn good actually

>>60069014
>it's an excellent choice for severs side backends

>backends often manipulate data
>no support for functional programming

>>60069536
It's not completely unwise with most teams to just do imperative / procedural until you really, really can't avoid doing FP anymore. And Go still can do a lot of stuff.

>>60069662
>use imperative/procedural because my team is retarded

>Go still can do a lot of stuff
Stuff like forcing you to do generics like in Java before 2004?

>>60069763
>use imperative/procedural because my team is retarded
Yep. Or you yourself. Doesn't really matter, in the end of the day a rebelling team will prevent you from getting shit done and one that can hack crap as it wants to usually will meet demands somehow. (Typical experience with the vast majority of projects).

> Stuff like forcing you to do generics like in Java before 2004?
You're probably right that that's a flaw even with typical teams.

They'll still often like Go better than, say, Scala or Haskell (maybe not even C#/F#) with all their features that they REALLY don't want to understand or learn or deal with. If you're in an environment that will prefer Haskell or Scala while keeping it sane enough that you can swim along and get your shit done easily: Lucky you.

>>60064970
Because they tried really hard to push Dart.
Funny how everyone forgot about that.

>>60069888
I have great respect for purely functional languages but I find they often make writing programs harder simply because programs generally aren't purely functional.
However, I think not supporting very simple features like generics or fp just to prevent stupid people from doing things wrong is a very very bad idea..

Java tried doing the same thing to an extend and look at what a mess it has become.
They recently realized that not supporting multiple inheritance was an idiotic decision and then they tried to remedy it by adding default methods for interfaces.

>>60066368
that is what it was designed for, and covers a lot

>>60069536
it's really not a problem in practice

>>60069888
i've seen teams go off the deep end in scala/haskell with wankery and abuse of the features. needs a strong leader to keep it under control.

>made perfect webserver with golang
>too lazy to front end

>>60066574
>python needs to die
Now you listen here you fucking triple nigger

>>60065151
>CPython 2.7
into the trash it goes

File: sentra nismo.jpg (76KB, 750x563px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 750x563px

>>60066605
turbo six sound like shit and still get shit mileage but the best is turbo 4 that perform like a 2.5l with turbo lag but eat gas like a v8 once you hit boost.

>>60066574
I think you are confusing Python with Ruby.

>>60069518
For trivial number benchmark and for source code optimized towards it. For everything else, the average speedup is ~7x to CPython which may sound good, but is less impressive if you consider that CPython is up to 500 slower than C.

>>60073188
No, unlike with Python, Ruby's 1.8 to 1.9 was a clean break.

>>60073252
>CPython is up to 500 slower than C
I'd love to see an example of that.

The highest difference I've found is the mandelbrot benchmark on benchmarksgame where CPython is 165 times slower.
That code is absolutely horrible and has unnecessary ipc overhead because all 16000 rows are communicated one by one instead of in chunks.

>average
>up to
>apples and oranges
pypy is also _up to_ 50 times faster than cpython according to the benchmarks on their website.
The only number benchmarks where pypy will not be able to catch up with C are those that were hackishly optimized for CPython.
If pypy can't optimize it, it's probably not worth optimizing.
If it is worth optimizing then you have a very special snowflake problem but Cython will do just fine.

>For everything else, the average speedup is ~7x
For Django, which is a fairly reasonable benchmark, the speedup is 20x, which is quite substantial and also infinitely better because there's no Django for C.