On 00:10 Sat 06 Dec , Aron Griffis wrote: > Bob Miller wrote: [Fri Dec 05 2003, 01:46:10PM EST] > > Second, is there anything wrong with Python as an implementation > > language? If you think Python is too slow, think again. On nearly > > every portage operation I do, the CPU is mostly idle -- it's the disk > > that's thrashing (according to gkrellm). The key to improving > > portage's performance is to get it to open fewer files. > > Sort of. It's true that there's a lot that could be done to improve > portage performance without changing languages. Nonetheless, even the > smallest test shows that python has a poor startup time. > > $ time python -c 'print "hi"' > user 0m0.023s > sys 0m0.004s > > $ time perl -e 'print "hi\n"' > user 0m0.003s > sys 0m0.003s [...]
I'd like to point out that that start up time is negligible -- especially since type typical emerges aren't going to be hindered by a less than one half second start up time. Part of the reason I am working on modularisation of portage is that you don't have to pull 5000 lines of python code along with a 50 line utility script. Also, if a bash script is feeling a hit from constantly reloading the portage library, it probably needs to be rewritten in python. -- -------------------------~ ----------Jason-A-Mobarak-~ -aether-at-gentoo-dot-org-~ -------------------------~ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
