Aurélien Campéas wrote: ...
Builtin ops like bignums arithmetic or whatever is implemented in C is obviously fast. OTOH, I wonder if some implementation choices of current CPyton, and part of its slowness, were made balancing simplicity of the code versus speed (stackless could be an example of a faster implementation, couldn't it ?). I remember having read stuff about that in some distant past.
At that time this was true, Stackless had been 5% slower than normal Python. Somewhere at 1.5.2 :-) But at the same time, I had implemented an aceleration of the interpreter loop of 10-15 %, which worked especially well with the windows compiler. Python was not interested in my path, only recently they are selling their grandma for a little speed. So I took the chance to speed up my slightly slower Stackless, to get a little advantage for those who didn't realize the real benefits of Stackless. Summary: No, it isn't faster, maybe even slightly slower. But it can be much faster if you use its features to implement your algorithms in a way Python cannot do it. Which still gets more relative because they pushed generators to the extremes (still limited but good). ciao - chris -- Christian Tismer :^) <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tismerysoft GmbH : Have a break! Take a ride on Python's Johannes-Niemeyer-Weg 9A : *Starship* http://starship.python.net/ 14109 Berlin : PGP key -> http://wwwkeys.pgp.net/ work +49 30 802 86 56 mobile +49 173 24 18 776 fax +49 30 80 90 57 05 PGP 0x57F3BF04 9064 F4E1 D754 C2FF 1619 305B C09C 5A3B 57F3 BF04 whom do you want to sponsor today? http://www.stackless.com/ _______________________________________________ [email protected] http://codespeak.net/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
