On 27/10/12 20:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:20:36 -0400 > Brett Cannon <bcannon at gmail.com> wrote: >> I did check that markup safe as not installed. It might just be mako doing >> something silly. >> >> The threads tests are very synthetic. >> >> And yes, there are more modules at startup. When was the last to,e we >> looked at them to make sure we weren't doing needless I ports? > > The last time was between 3.2 and 3.3. It will be hard to lower the > number of imported modules, given the current semantics (io, importlib, > unicode, site.py, sysconfig...). Python 2's view of the world was much > simpler (naïve?) in comparison. > > It would be interesting to know *where* the module import time gets > spent, on a lower level. My gut feeling is that execution of Python > module code is the main contributor. I suspect that stating and loading the .pyc files is responsible for most of the overhead. PyRun starts up quite a lot faster thanks to embedding all the modules in the executable: http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/ Freezing all the core modules into the executable should reduce start up time. Cheers, Mark
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