Well, for a lot of applications for Python, the performance that really
counts is time from no code but a pile of data to code and processed
data. Python shines at that because nearly always the time to write
the code dominates, so it doesn't matter what the run time is.
I wrote a little tool to translate a bunch of free data into scenery
for the X-Plane flight simulator. If I'd tried to do it in C, I'd
still be debugging it, whereas I released it and the scenery I was
building six months ago. The run time of the C version would be, I
speculate, about 5 times faster than the Python (given that psyco
speeds it up about 8 times, and I would not have been so fancy with the
algorithms in C). But a 5x improvement on a 24 hour runtime is not 6
months of improvement.
The other thing we can do is finish the portable backend for psyco and
make it a standard module. Then Python won't be slow, it will be
compiled, and py2exe will be able to make a single-file executable.
Andrew
On 9/12/2004, at 11:18 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
> I was pleasantly surprised to find a pointer to this article in a news
> digest that the ACM emails me regularly (ACM TechNews).
>
> http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/28026-1.html
>
> One thing that bugs me: the article says 3 or 4 times that Python is
> slow, each time with a refutation ("but it's so flexible", "but it's
> fast enough") but still, they sure seem to harp on the point. This is
> a PR issue that Python needs to fight -- any ideas?
>
> --
> --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
> _______________________________________________
> Python-Dev mailing list
> Python-Dev at python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/
> andrew%40indranet.co.nz
>
>
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