On 27/10/12 20:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 09:20:36 -0400
Brett Cannon <bcan...@gmail.com> wrote:
I did check that markup safe as not installed. It might just be mako doing
something silly.
The threads tests are very synthetic.
And yes, there are more modules at startup. When was the last to,e we
looked at them to make sure we weren't doing needless I ports?
The last time was between 3.2 and 3.3. It will be hard to lower the
number of imported modules, given the current semantics (io, importlib,
unicode, site.py, sysconfig...). Python 2's view of the world was much
simpler (naïve?) in comparison.
It would be interesting to know *where* the module import time gets
spent, on a lower level. My gut feeling is that execution of Python
module code is the main contributor.
I suspect that stating and loading the .pyc files is responsible for
most of the overhead.
PyRun starts up quite a lot faster thanks to embedding all the modules
in the executable: http://www.egenix.com/products/python/PyRun/
Freezing all the core modules into the executable should reduce start up
time.
Cheers,
Mark
_______________________________________________
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
