On Dec 11, 2007 1:25 PM, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > sturlamolden wrote: > > On 10 Des, 23:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) wrote: > > > >> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil in programming." > >> --C.A.R. Hoare (often misattributed to Knuth, who was himself quoting > >> Hoare) > > We're ten years into Python, and it's still a naive interpreter.
This is an absurd misrepresentation of the state of the Python VM. > It's time for a serious optimizing compiler. Shed Skin is going > in the right direction. But for some reason, people seem to dislike the > Shed Skin effort. Its author writes "Am I the only one seeing the potential > of an implicitly statically typed Python-likea-lnguage that runs at > practically the same speed as C++?" > > "For a set of 27 non-trivial test programs (at about 7,000 lines in total; > ... measurements show a typical speedup of 2-40 times over Psyco, about 10 on > average, and 2-220 times over CPython, about 35 on average." So that's > what's possible. > ... with roughly a hundredth of the python standard library, and a bunch of standard python features not even possible. I like generators, thanks. If shedskin can actually match Pythons feature set and provide the performance it aspires to, thats great, and I may even start using it then. But in the meantime, hardly anything I write is CPU bound and when it is I can easily optimize using other mechanisms. Shedskin doesn't give me anything that's worth my time to improve on it, or the restrictions it places on my code. I think JIT is the future of optimization anyway. > I'm surprised that Google management isn't pushing Guido towards > doing something about the performance problem. > Assuming your conclusion (ie, that there's a performance problem to do something about) doesn't prove your case. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
