On Aug 7, 2:52 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Aug 7, 6:38 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > On Aug 7, 2:05 am, "Jack" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I know one benchmark doesn't mean much but it's still disappointing to see > > > Python as one of the slowest languages in the test: > > > >http://blog.dhananjaynene.com/2008/07/performance-comparison-c-java-p... > > > That Python code is bad, it contains range() instead of xrange, the > > big loop is in the main code instead of inside a function, uses == > > None, etc. That person can try this (with Psyco), I have changed very > > little, the code is essentially the same: > > Yes, this was pointed out in the comments. I had updated the code to > use > xrange and is and is not instead of range, == and !=, which is how > the > benchmark got updated to 192 microseconds. Moving the main loop into > a main function resulted in no discernible difference. > > Testing with psyco resulted in a time of 33 microseconds per > iteration. >
I have since updated the post to reflect the python with psyco timings as well. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
