km a écrit :
> Hi all,
>
> ya i am sorry i tried with an empty loop first and then one which emits a
> value as the snippet. I have tested it on my machine and now ...
>
> 1) perl (v 5.8) does the job in 0.005 seconds
> 2) but python (v 2.4.1) is horribly slow its 0.61 seconds.
> and using range() instead of xrange() in python snippet, it not better , it
> takes 0.57 seconds. just test it urself and see.
>
> what more do i need to accept python is slow when it comes to loops concept ?
>
#python -> python2.4.1:
for i in xrange(100000):
print i
real 0m8.997s
user 0m1.355s
sys 0m0.483s
/* C -> gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic -O3 */
# include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
printf("%d\n", i);
return 0;
}
real 0m7.165s
user 0m0.276s
sys 0m0.430s
Well... seems that Python is not *so* slow when compared to C on this
one. But wait... Could it be possible that we're in fact merely
benchmarking IO's ?-)
lol...
And what about this:
# loops2.pl
for $x (0..100000){}
real 0m0.038s
user 0m0.030s
sys 0m0.002s
# loops2.c
int main(void)
{
int i;
for (i = 0; i < 100000; i++);
return 0;
}
real 0m0.002s
user 0m0.001s
sys 0m0.001s
Oh my ! What more do you need to accept Perl is *so awfully slow*.
If you want to keep on trolling on this, I suggest that you "benchmark"
(lol) a Java, a PHP and a Ruby versions too...
But I don't despair... Chances are that, one day, you understand that
what is important is what you going on in the loop - not the loop itself.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
