I wrote a little tool to translate a bunch of free data into scenery for the X-Plane flight simulator. If I'd tried to do it in C, I'd still be debugging it, whereas I released it and the scenery I was building six months ago. The run time of the C version would be, I speculate, about 5 times faster than the Python (given that psyco speeds it up about 8 times, and I would not have been so fancy with the algorithms in C). But a 5x improvement on a 24 hour runtime is not 6 months of improvement.
The other thing we can do is finish the portable backend for psyco and make it a standard module. Then Python won't be slow, it will be compiled, and py2exe will be able to make a single-file executable.
Andrew
On 9/12/2004, at 11:18 AM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
I was pleasantly surprised to find a pointer to this article in a news digest that the ACM emails me regularly (ACM TechNews).
http://gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/28026-1.html
One thing that bugs me: the article says 3 or 4 times that Python is slow, each time with a refutation ("but it's so flexible", "but it's fast enough") but still, they sure seem to harp on the point. This is a PR issue that Python needs to fight -- any ideas?
-- --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/ andrew%40indranet.co.nz
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
