James Y Knight wrote: > So I was saying to someone the other day "Gee, I wonder why Python > doesn't use tagged integers, it seems like it would be a lot faster than > allocating new objects all the time.", and they said "Cause you'd have > to change everything, too much work!" and I said "Nah, you only need to > change a few things to use macros, it'd only take a few hours, mostly > query-replace". > > So, of course, I had to do it then, and it only took a couple hours, and > appears to be at least somewhat faster. It made integer-heavy things 20% faster. How much slower did it make everything else? Did you try running a complete benchmark (e.g. pystone) before and after? And the lack of portability is a real problem - it means that every code path must be tested twice AND there might be architectures and problems were tagged integers work but it actually makes things slower. I'm skeptical until I see a complete system benchmark but it's great that you tried this! Cheers, Brian
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4