On 11 October 2016 at 17:49, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 12 October 2016 at 02:16, Elliot Gorokhovsky > <elliot.gorokhov...@gmail.com> wrote: >> So I thought, wow, this will give some nice numbers! But I underestimated >> the power of this optimization. You have no idea. It's crazy. >> This is just insane. This is crazy. > > Not to take away from the potential for speed improvements (which do > indeed seem interesting), but I'd ask that folks avoid using mental > health terms to describe test results that we find unbelievable. There > are plenty of other adjectives we can use, and a text-based medium > like email gives us a chance to proofread our posts before we send > them.
I'd also suggest toning down the rhetoric a bit (all-caps title, "the contents of this message may be dangerous for readers with heart conditions" etc. Your results do seem good, but it's a little hard to work out what you actually did, and how your results were produced, through the hype. It'll be much better when someone else has a means to reproduce your results to confirm them. In all honestly, people have been working on Python's performance for a long time now, and I'm more inclined to think that a 50% speedup is a mistake rather than an opportunity that's been missed for all that time. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but for now I'm skeptical. Please continue working on this - I'd love my skepticism to be proved wrong! Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
