Hi Yury, On 21 June 2015 at 14:25, Yury V. Zaytsev <y...@shurup.com> wrote: > In conclusion, I'm afraid there is not much at all to learn from this > publication... > > ... except that, maybe, this kind of papers should be reviewed by > experts on the subject, and not by domain scientists (in this case, > astrophysicists), who are generally unlikely to reject such works, as > long as it looks reasonably "scientific" and the grammar is good enough.
Thanks for making and sharing your observations. There is not much we can actively do. Of course running a loop only 100 times gives a bad idea about the performance of any real JIT. (Did they include the time spent calling gcc/llvm, for some of the other "JITs"?) We can however point people to your mail, if they come and complain to us. It gives a nice summary of a point of view much closer to our own. That said, I'm afraid the scientific community will continue to produce "JITs" as long as there is no well-accepted alternative to CPython. I think that fighting every attempt or paper we disagree with is pointless. I'd rather get PyPy to progress to a point where it be can used as a drop-in replacement of CPython in this domain too. (I'm not in numpy at all myself, so it's more a would-be-nice wish here.) A bientôt, Armin. _______________________________________________ pypy-dev mailing list pypy-dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/pypy-dev
