On 12/03/2016 16:42, BartC wrote:
On 12/03/2016 15:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:12 AM, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
However, I was going to revise my benchmark to use strings instead of
integers, to show how much slower they would be. But the program was 10%
faster with strings!
So there's something funny going on. Either string operations are
super-fast
or integer operations are somehow crippled. Or maybe there so many other
overheads, that the difference between strings and ints is lost.
Or maybe they're all actually *object* comparisons,
Yeah, that explains it!
and what you know
about assembly language has no relationship to what's going on here.
This is why we keep advising you to get to know *Python*,
I'm not sure /my/ knowing Python better is going to help it get any faster.
I discovered something that might be a clue to what's going on, but
you're content to just brush it under the carpet.
OK.
For a language that is apparently so slow that is unusable, it somehow
has managed to get a following. From https://www.python.org/about/success/
<quote>
Python is part of the winning formula for productivity, software
quality, and maintainability at many companies and institutions around
the world. Here are 41 real-life Python success stories, classified by
application domain.
</quote>
So I am clearly not the only programmer in the world who couldn't care
less about speed.
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
