On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 22:11:01 +0100 Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > On 27/10/12 21:59, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Oct 2012 21:40:26 +0100 > > Mark Shannon <m...@hotpy.org> wrote: > >> On 27/10/12 20:21, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > >>> > >>> 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/ > > > > Any numbers? > > No numbers, but I did see this talk: > http://2012.pyconuk.net/Talks/PyRun > The abstract claims that PyRun "has a greatly improved startup time > compared to regular Python"
Sounds great ;-) cheers Antoine. _______________________________________________ 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
