On 4 Jul, 06:15, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- cybersource.com.au> wrote:
> "Need" is a bit strong. There are plenty of applications where if your > code takes 0.1 millisecond to run instead of 0.001, you won't even > notice. Or applications that are limited by the speed of I/O rather than > the CPU. > But I'm nitpicking... this is a nice result, the Lua people should be > proud, and I certainly wouldn't say no to a faster Python :) Need might be too strong, sorry. I'm not a native speaker of English :) Don't read this as a complaint about Python being too slow. I don't care about milliseconds either. But I do care about libraries like Python's standard library, wxPython, NumPy, and matplotlib. And when I need C, C++ or Fortran I know where to fint it. Nobody in the scientific community would be sad if Python was so fast that no C or Fortran would have to be written. And I am sure Google and many other users of Python would not mind either. And this is kind of a proof that it can be. Considering that Lua is to Python what C is to C++ (more or less), it means that it is possible to make Python run very fast as well. Yes the LuaJIT team should be proud. Making a scripting language run faster than Fortran on CPU-bound work is a superhuman result. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
