On Sun, Mar 29, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 10:50 am, BartC wrote: > >> (X is my own interpreted language, which is where my interest in this >> is. This had been generally faster than Python until PyPy came along. It >> does however use a pure byte-code interpreter, so the result is not too >> bad. >> >> But using X *and* my own brute-force algorithm, the same puzzle took 2 >> seconds to solve - faster than C! > > But, when you tell me that your very own personal interpreted language, > which I assume nobody else has worked on, is 40% faster than optimized C, > my first reaction is to expect that you've probably made a mistake > somewhere. I would have the same reaction if somebody casually dropped into > a conversation that they happened to beat Usain Bolt's 100m personal best > of 9.58 seconds by almost four seconds. While carrying a 20kg backpack.
I think you're misreading the stats. The first table compares languages, all using the same algorithm, and in that, C beat X ten to one, unoptimized. The second figure, when X took only 2 seconds, was demonstrating the massive improvement that the algorithmic change (from "the OP's algorithm" to "[BartC's] own brute-force algorithm") achieved. For comparison, that's like casually dropping into conversation that you happened to drive a car faster than Usain Bolt's personal best. :) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
