On Thu, 2009-03-12 at 13:25 -0700, Chris Rebert wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 1:07 PM, Sam Ettessoc <sami...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would like to share a benchmark I did. The computer used was a > > 2160MHz Intel Core Duo w/ 2000MB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM running MAC OS > > 10.5.6 and a lots of software running (a typical developer > > workstation). > > > > Python benchmark: > > HAMBURGUESA:benchmark sam$ echo 1+1 > bench.py > > HAMBURGUESA:benchmark sam$ time python bench.py > > real 0m0.064s > > user 0m0.049s > > sys 0m0.013s > > > > Ruby benchmark: > > HAMBURGUESA:benchmark sam$ echo 1+1 > bench.rb > > HAMBURGUESA:benchmark sam$ time ruby bench.rb > > real 0m0.006s > > user 0m0.003s > > sys 0m0.003s > > > > Can you believe it? Ruby is 10 times faster than Python. > > I submit that you are effectively just comparing start-up times: > > $ time ruby < /dev/null > > real 0m0.006s > user 0m0.003s > sys 0m0.003s > > $ time python < /dev/null > > real 0m0.020s > user 0m0.011s > sys 0m0.009s > > Since Python includes a full interactive interpreter REPL, whereas > Ruby doesn't, you're comparing apples to oranges. A more fair > comparison would be to compare python and irb: > > $ time irb </dev/null > > real 0m0.024s > user 0m0.017s > sys 0m0.006s >
<devil's advocate> In all fairness, if python isn't being run from a terminal then there should be no need to initiate a "full interactive interpreter". </devil's advocate> But yeah, it's not really a benchmark as it merely shows start-up times. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
