>The point of the OP was "patterns for fast python", i.e performance. It's absurd to claim that you "advocate abstractions over performance" in the context of achieving performance, so your comparison doesn't make sense to me. Just because you don't advocate performance doesn't mean that these aren't the ways to achieve performance.
He never said he doesn't advocate performance. He said performance should not be achieved by sacrificing abstractions.
>In addition, it sounds you mostly agree with regard to rewriting in C... use it as a last resort.
In CPython, not necessarily in Guido's advice, it's one of the first and most common things you hear about performance. "Just write parts of it in C".
If that was the advice of the early JVM guys ("just write parts of it in JNI"), we would never have gotten a fast JVM.
Agreed. But Guido didn't advocate performance, or anything, so fijal is trying to disagree with him about a topic he didn't state an opinion on. There's no need to make up a disagreement. Imagine if fijal instead said:
"This is a fine list of techniques if you are willing to sacrifice your abstractions. At PyPy, we're not willing to do that, and we still achieve sufficiently high performance by..."
He never said he doesn't advocate performance. He said performance should not be achieved by sacrificing abstractions.
>In addition, it sounds you mostly agree with regard to rewriting in C... use it as a last resort.
In CPython, not necessarily in Guido's advice, it's one of the first and most common things you hear about performance. "Just write parts of it in C".
If that was the advice of the early JVM guys ("just write parts of it in JNI"), we would never have gotten a fast JVM.