On 08/03/2016 23:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016 06:15 am, BartC wrote:
[...]
But this was hardly necessary as it was so obvious: it takes 150ms to
process a 300-pixel image, 20 seconds for a 2Mpixel one, and (I have to
switch to PyPy here as I've never had time to hang about for it) 180
seconds for 80Mpixel file.
Surely the start-up time would be the same no matter what the input.
Mark seems to think that it's completely irrelevant, but that's surely wrong.
The exact opposite actually. I'm trying to make sense of these so
called benchmark figures, and quite frankly can't make head nor tail of
them. BartC also cannot seem to grasp that the vast majority of people
often couldn't care less about them, but continues banging on as if
Python will never take off as it's too slow, whereas the reality is that
it's been doing rather well.
--
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
