   boo
  there was a "boo?" thread, yet it's close already, so i start the new one copying the end of the closing post be Rob Loach:"The speed difference between Python and IronPython is debatable, just like the speed difference with C++ and C#. IronPython's syntax is pretty much the same as Python's. The only reason you'd use IronPython/Boo over Python is the fact that you can use .NET tools and frameworks in it."as far as i understand the stuff, boo should be many times faster than ironpython (as c#, in fact) due to the static typing and the fact it's compiled, not interpreted (unlike ironpython).also, there doesn't seem to be a free IDE supporting ironpython (python binding for sharpdevelop (http://ironpython-urls.blogspot.com/2007/06/python-binding-sharpdevelop-addin.html) being still quite an early beta).there's python for .net (http://pythonnet.sourceforge.net/) as well making .NET framework accessible for classic python (yet i was not able to install it using the "snapshot" distribution).(am i mistaken beliving, it's not yet possible to debug ironpython in python binding? and does anybody run python for .NET with python 2.5 and .NET 2.0?)   
  If you refer to this thread, it's nearly one year old, so yes, it's "already" closed.Now, if you want to speak about some random language speed, I should warn you that1) a language has no intrinsic speed (same as your shoes, you know). 2) interpreters are really fast these days. 3) IronPython may not be compiled to optimal bytecode and furthermore the JIT compiler of .NET may not generate optimal machine code. But I'll let the other python oriented guys answer more specific questions.   ;Quote:Original post by Emmanuel Deloget1) a language has no intrinsic speed (same as your shoes, you know). Pah, only people with slow shoes say that! [lol]   ;Quote:Original post by Emmanuel Deloget1) a language has no intrinsic speed (same as your shoes, you know). not really intrinsic perhaps, yet i believed http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python&lang2=psyco&sort=fullcpu these benchmarks to be telling. (?);Quote:not really intrinsic perhaps, yet i believed http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python&lang2=psyco&sort=fullcpu these benchmarks to be telling. (?)Sure, they're telling. They're benchmarking the performance of particular implementations of particular problems using particular implementations of a particular toolchain for a particular language. Those benchmarks tell you a great deal -- about that particular scenario.You can't take those benchmarks and draw the conclusion that one language is in general faster than another. To draw that conclusion -- and to make that claim -- is naive.   ;  That benchmark measures the performance of the Standard Python Interpreter Program Thingy That Runs Your Code, rather than of Python itself; I think that's what Emmanuel was getting at. Notice how many of the other languages specify which tool was used to compile or run the code; Python doesn't have a tool named because there is only really one tool. You could still write your own Python interpreter that could have different performance characteristics.   