Steven D'Aprano wrote: > In other words, about 20% of the time he measures is the time taken to > print junk to the screen.
Which makes his claim that "all the console outputs have been removed so that the benchmarking activity is not interfered with by the IO overheads" somewhat confusing...he didn't notice the output? Wrote it off as a weird Python side-effect? I find his reluctance to entertain more idiomatic implementations particularly telling. It's seems he's less interested in actual performance comparisons and more into showing that writing static lang style code in dynamic langs is bad, which isn't really anything new to anyone anywhere, I would've thought. All up, this reminds me of last years benchmarking fiasco that demonstrated Storm's ORM handling being -incredibly-faster than SQLAlchemy's SQL expression handling, something that just didn't seem to be born out by user experience. Eventually, Mike Beyer reverse engineered the benchmarks to discover that, surprise surprise, the tests -weren't equal-; in one test SQLA was issuing a commit per insert, while Storm was performing -no commits whatsoever-. Benchmarks, IMO, are like statistics. You can tweak them to prove pretty much any position you already take. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
