Hello, On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 11:36:59 +0100 Stefan Krah <ste...@bytereef.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 06, 2017 at 12:18:17PM +0200, Paul Sokolovsky wrote: > > MicroPython hashmap implementation is effectively O(n) (average and > > worst case) due to the algorithm parameters chosen (like the load > > factor of 1). Of course, parameters could be tweaked, but the ones > > chosen are so because the memory usage is far more important for > > MicroPython systems than performance characteristics (all due to > > small amounts of memory). Like, MicroPython was twice as fast than > > Python 3.3 on average, and 1000 times more efficient in the memory > > usage. > [] > > $ time ./micropython xxx.py > $ time ../../cpython/python xxx.py > > Congratulations ... That's why I wrote "Python 3.3", it's hard to argue CPython doesn't do anything about the "Python is slow" proverb. It's still shouldn't be hard to construct a testcase where MicroPython is faster (by not implementing features not needed by 90% of Python programs of course, not "for free"). Anyway, where're memory measurements? (This is offtopic, so I shouldn't have replied.) > Stefan Krah -- Best regards, Paul mailto:pmis...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com