Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz>: > BartC wrote: >> It appears to be those "<=" and "+" operations in the code above >> where much of the time is spent. When I trace out the execution paths >> a bit more, I'll have a better picture of how many lines of C code >> are involved in each iteration. > > The path from decoding a bytecode to the C code that implements it can > be rather convoluted, but there are reasons for each of the > complications -- mainly to do with supporting the ability to override > operators with C and/or Python code. > > If you removed those abilities, the implemention would be simpler, and > possibly faster. But then the language wouldn't be Python any more.
I agree that Python's raison-d'être is its dynamism and expressive power. It definitely shouldn't be sacrificed for performance. However, in some respects, Python might be going overboard with its dynamism; are all those dunder methods really needed? Must "false" be defined so broadly? Must a method lookup necessarily involve object creation? Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
