On 04 Jul 2010 04:15:57 GMT 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.
Which is 99% of the real-world applications if you factor out the code already written in C or other compiled languages. That's the point of Python after all. You speed up programming rather than programs but allow for refactoring into C when necessary. And it's not call CPython for nothing. off-the-shelf benchmarks are fun but mostly useless for choosing a language, priogram, OS or machine unless you know that it checks the actual things that you need in the proportion that you need. > 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 :) Ditto, ditto, ditto and ditto. > It's not like this is a race, and speed is not the only thing which a > language is judged by. Otherwise you'd be programming in C, not Python, > right? Or assembler. -- D'Arcy J.M. Cain <da...@druid.net> | Democracy is three wolves http://www.druid.net/darcy/ | and a sheep voting on +1 416 425 1212 (DoD#0082) (eNTP) | what's for dinner. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
