David C. Ullrich wrote:
Just heard about Psycho. I've often wondered why someone
doesn't make something that does exactly what Psycho does - keen.
Silly question: It's correct, is it not, that Psycho doesn't
actually modify the Python installation, except by adding a
module or two (so that code
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> > Just heard about Psycho. I've often wondered why someone
> > doesn't make something that does exactly what Psycho does - keen.
> >
> > Silly question: It's correct, is it not, that Psycho
David C. Ullrich:
> Thanks. If I can get it installed and it works as advertised
> this means I can finally (eventually) finish the process of
> dumping MS Windows: the only reason I need it right now is for
> the small number of Delphi programs I have for which straight
> Python is really not adeq
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> David C. Ullrich:
> > Thanks. If I can get it installed and it works as advertised
> > this means I can finally (eventually) finish the process of
> > dumping MS Windows: the only reason I need it right now is for
> > the small number of
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > David C. Ullrich:
> > > Thanks. If I can get it installed and it works as advertised
> > > this means I can finally (eventually) finish the process
David C. Ullrich wrote:
Thanks. I would have guessed that I'd want low-level style code;
that's the sort of thing I have in mind. In fact the only thing
that seems likely to come up right now is looping through an
array of bytes, modifying them. The plan is to use the array
module first to conve
Erik Max Francis:
> If len(bytes) is large, you might want to use `xrange`, too. `range`
> creates a list which is not really what you need.
That's right for Python, but Psyco uses normal loops in both cases,
you can time this code in the two situations:
def foo1(n):
count = 0
for i in r
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Max Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> > Thanks. I would have guessed that I'd want low-level style code;
> > that's the sort of thing I have in mind. In fact the only thing
> > that seems likely to come up right now is looping t
On Aug 6, 8:52 pm, "David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > David C. Ullrich:
> > > Thanks. If I can get it installed and it works as advertised
> > > this means I can finally (eventually) finish the process of
> > > dumping
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
MRAB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Aug 6, 8:52 pm, "David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > David C. Ullrich:
> > > > Thanks. If I can get it installed and it works as advertised
David C. Ullrich wrote:
> f: 0.0158488750458
> g: 0.000610113143921
> h: 0.00200295448303
> f: 0.0184948444366
> g: 0.000257015228271
> h: 0.00116610527039
I suspect you're hitting the point of diminishing returns with g, and
any further investigations into optimisation are purely for fun and
lea
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David C. Ullrich wrote:
>
> > f: 0.0158488750458
> > g: 0.000610113143921
> > h: 0.00200295448303
> > f: 0.0184948444366
> > g: 0.000257015228271
> > h: 0.00116610527039
>
> I suspect you're hitting the point
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:18 -0500, David C. Ullrich wrote:
> Curiously g is exactly how I'd planned on doing it
> before trying anything. The one thing that puzzles me about
> all the results is why // is so much slower than / inside
> that Psyco loop.
>
> > Tim Delaney
>
One possibility for t
John Krukoff:
> One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
> it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
> isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
> syntax.
> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard ther
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> John Krukoff:
> > One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
> > it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
> > isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
On 8 Aug, 20:36, John Krukoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> One possibility for the performance difference, is that as I understand
> it the psyco developer has moved on to working on pypy, and probably
> isn't interested in keeping psyco updated and optimized for new python
> syntax.
More here o
On Aug 8, 7:18 pm, "David C. Ullrich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The one thing that puzzles me about
> all the results is why // is so much slower than / inside
> that Psyco loop.
Just an oversight. The optimization about '/' between integers
was not copied for the case of '//' between integers
For the benefit of those trying to find, download, and import the
module, its name is psyco (no 'h'), not psycho .
http://psyco.sourceforge.net/
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
18 matches
Mail list logo
