On 07/03/2016 11:38, BartC wrote:
On 07/03/2016 11:11, Marko Rauhamaa wrote:
BartC <b...@freeuk.com>:
I've also found that 3 was consistently slower than 2 on various
benchmarks. Perhaps 10 to 20% slower (also 3.4 vs. 2.7).
Python doesn't exist for performance-critical parts of your solution.
Also, Python programs tend to take huge amounts of space.
I'm not complaining. For my purposes (implementing a similar language
that competes with Python for speed), I welcome the slower speed of
Python 3!
(Although competing with CPython is too easy. PyPy is more of a problem.
With the Jpeg benchmark I mentioned, I can beat PyPy up to 6Mpix, but
then PyPy starts to get faster. At 80Mpix, PyPy is 60% faster.)
I suspect that all that is happening is you are ignoring the Python
startup time, so the more data you process, the better the figures will
look for any version of Python.
As for the real world, as opposed to benchmarks, how about this
https://www.willmcgugan.com/blog/tech/post/realtime-events-with-the-inthingio-python-api/
?
--
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.
Mark Lawrence
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
