En Mon, 14 Apr 2008 10:48:47 -0300, 一首诗 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:
> I read this article on http://kortis.to/radix/python_ext/
Note the date (2002) and the Python version used (2.1)
> And I decided to try if it's true.
>
> I write the program in 4 ways:
>
> 1. Pure C
> 2. Python using C exten
On 14 Απρ, 16:48, 一首诗 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I read this article onhttp://kortis.to/radix/python_ext/
>
> And I decided to try if it's true.
>
> I write the program in 4 ways:
>
> 1. Pure C
> 2. Python using C extension
> 3. Python using psycho
> 4. Pure Python
>
> And then I used timeit to t
2008/4/14 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Apr 14, 8:48 am, 一首诗 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > But, it is still not as fast as 1.
>
>
> So if speed is the #1 design goal, use pure C. If not, develop in
> pure Python and, if the application is too slow, profile the code and
> look for bottlenecks that
On Apr 14, 8:48 am, 一首诗 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But, it is still not as fast as 1.
So if speed is the #1 design goal, use pure C. If not, develop in
pure Python and, if the application is too slow, profile the code and
look for bottlenecks that can be optimized. There's a good chance
that
I read this article on http://kortis.to/radix/python_ext/
And I decided to try if it's true.
I write the program in 4 ways:
1. Pure C
2. Python using C extension
3. Python using psycho
4. Pure Python
And then I used timeit to test the speed of these 4. Unsurprisingly,
the time they cost were:
