On Aug 30, 2011, at 9:05 AM, Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: >> On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:29:59 +1000 >> Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Anecdotal, non-reproducible performance figures are *not* the way to >>> go about serious optimisation efforts. >> >> What about anecdotal *and* reproducible performance figures? :) >> I may be half-joking, but we already have a set of py3k-compatible >> benchmarks and, besides, sometimes a timeit invocation gives a good >> idea of whether an approach is fruitful or not. >> While a permanent public reference with historical tracking of >> performance figures is even better, let's not freeze everything until >> it's ready. >> (for example, do we need to wait for speed.python.org before PEP 393 is >> accepted?) > > Yeah, I'd neglected the idea of just running perf.py for pre- and > post-patch performance comparisons. You're right that that can > generate sufficient info to make a well-informed decision. > > I'd still really like it if some of the people advocating that we care > about CPython performance actually volunteered to spearhead the effort > to get speed.python.org up and running, though. As far as I know, the > hardware's spinning idly waiting to be given work to do :P > > Cheers, > Nick. > Discussion of speed.python.org should happen on the mailing list for that project if possible. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
