John Nagle schrieb: > 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. > 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-like-language 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.
No, it's not. Shedskin is interesting, but just a small subset of Python - and without completeness, performance is useless. The PyPy approach is much more interesting - first create a full-featured Python itself, then create optimizing backends for it, also for just a language subset - RPython. And if possible - which it is only in a very limited set of cases for not type-annotated code - identify parts that conform to RPython's constraints, and compile that JITly. Diez -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
