Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Alain Ketterlin > <al...@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr> wrote: >>> Perhaps, perhaps not. My experience is that only a small percentage of >>> the CPU time is spent in the Python interpreter. >> >> Basically, you're saying that a major fraction of python programs is >> written in another language. An interesting argument... > > No, a major fraction of Python program execution time is deep inside > code written in another language. In extreme cases, you might have a > tiny bit of Python glue and the bulk of your code is actually, say, > FORTRAN - such as a hefty numpy number crunch - which lets you take > advantage of multiple cores, since there's no Python code running most > of the time.
This is actually what I meant. I find it sad to keep Python such a glue language (the kind of language you throw away when the trend changes---like Perl for example). > And that's counting only CPU time. If you count wall time, your > typical Python program spends most of its time deep inside kernel API > calls, waiting for the user or I/O or something. But this is true of any IO-bound program, whatever the language. I see no reason why Python should be restricted to simple processing tasks. -- Alain. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
