"David Cournapeau" <courn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.546.1283897932.29448.python-l...@python.org...
On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, BartC <ba...@freeuk.com> wrote:
One order of magnitude (say 10-20x slower) wouldn't be so bad. That's
what
you might expect for a dynamically typed, interpreted language.
10/20x slower than C is only reached by extremely well optimized
dynamic languages. It would be a tremendous achievement. If that's
Well, that is what I do (mess around with languages and stuff).
Getting back to the OP's code again (trivial and pointless as it might
seem), I got these results:
C (gcc 3.4.5 -O3) 0.8 secs
C (DMC-o) 2.3 secs
C (lccwin32 -O) 2.9 secs
My last interpreter 12.6 secs dynamically typed language
(or 4.5 secs when told the type of 'a'; but that's
cheating a little..)
Python 3 177.0 secs
That's why I was questioning the latter's performance in for-loops. But now
that I know a bit more about Python (having dynamic everything) the figure
is not so surprising. However, it's still slow!
what you are after, look at LUA with its JIT, or scheme + stalin.
I've seen LuaJIT in action. It's timing for this test is 1.5 secs: forget
being only 10x slower than C, it's faster than some C versions! (I'm sure it
must be cheating somewhere...)
--
bartc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
