Yeah, the author has to resort to tone-policing because they have no good rebuttals for the criticism being received so they are trying to invalidate and dismiss said criticism due to its 'tone'.
It was only put in place a year ago, and it was very quickly contested as unconstitutional, which it is, and a judge stopped it from being enforced. The Republican who drafted and sponsored the law has vowed to try again. ”If if the judge says, you know, this is bad because of ‘x’, next year, though, the bill will come in bill minus ‘x’,”
Please keep to the HN guidelines and stop reposting that article and claim which has been debunked multiple times in this comment section - it contributes nothing to the conversation.
I’ve mentioned some of the bad effects vouchers would have. That would be a supporting argument in my mind. The bad consequences are easy enough to deduce though so that should not be necessary. This is not an academic forum. This is a place where people post their perspective and opinions. I have no desire to hunt down links. Interested people can do that for themselves.
It’s worth pointing out that people who support vouchers haven’t posted links to papers showing that vouchers are good. At least not in the thread started by rayiner. There have been papers posted on ancillary topics but not on the efficacy of vouchers. This isn’t a complaint on my part. I’m showing an asymmetry in the view that you posted above.
As for downvotes. I don’t care about internet points and never complain about downvotes or are otherwise affected by them. If you think what I’ve written is poorly stated or otherwise bad then downvote.
The person who said that smart kids dropped into a war zone would do just fine said something moronic and without attribution to its veracity. Why don’t you downvote them and ask for citations? Are you consistent in your view on this? I doubt it because if you were you’d be downvoting the overwhelming majority of comments on every thread on HN.
What’s uncharitable about defaulting to thinking someone implying black people’s culture makes them murderous around the world is being racist? The “given demographic” they were specifying was a race!
Considering there's been data and benchmarks provided to support the argument that the performance improvements have been substantial, can you provide any evidence to support your argument against it?
Otherwise, your argument isn't very compelling, especially after having admitted that you haven't even used Python in ways that would warrant any assessment of performance for those use cases.
Stop interpreting sane evaluations of the speed of a language's implementation as an attack.
The evidence that Python is still slow is abundant and overwhelming. It's not like it's a subtle thing. It's a huge gulf. If you don't understand this, the problem isn't that jerf on Hacker News didn't spell it out to your satisfaction; the problem is that you are not evaluating things calmly and sensibly from an engineering perspective, but are using your political brain to evaluate programming languages. Until you stop doing that, you will never understand what is going on; once you do stop doing that, the truth will be so obvious you won't need me to spell it out for you.
The largest number I have seen for microbenchmarks is around 50% speedup in comparison to the last version before this project started.
So, if that version was 40x slower than C (and that is very optimistic), the latest version is still 30x slower. That is the point that the GP made.
I would not call that substantial at all. I'd prefer to keep the CPython interpreter simple, people who want faster Python can use pypy or other things.
The real work in scientific Python will always be done in C or CUDA extensions. No 50% speedup will change anything.
Depends on how you define speed-up. This is the most natural definition for me:
As a baseline, my code can do 100 operations / second.
With 50% speedup (+50%), my code can do 150 operations / second.
If C was 40x faster than the baseline, it could do 4000 operations / second. After the speedup C can still do 27x as many operations per second. (4000/150 = 26.66..)
Exactly. Software development is in the middle of a clash with reality. It's just not sensible to expect to pay nothing for a piece of vital infrastructure.
Yeah there's a wide range of currently contentious topics - pick either one of them.
It really is about whether people can tolerate hearing things - or even knowing they speak about them - that they don't agree with, without turning into (in the worst cases) a savage frenzy of bullies. The ability to discern nuance seems to be getting lost.
What a lazy rhetorical device.