On 5/12/2014 8:43 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: > On 13 May 2014 10:19, <dw+python-...@hmmz.org> wrote: >> On Mon, May 12, 2014 at 04:22:52PM -0700, Gregory Szorc wrote: >> >>> Why can't Python start as quickly as Perl or Ruby? >> >> On my heavily abused Core 2 Macbook with 9 .pth files, 2.7 drops >> from 81ms startup to 20ms by specifying -S, which disables >> site.py. >> >> Oblitering the .pth files immediately knocks 10ms off regular >> startup. I guess the question isn't why Python is slower than >> perl, but what aspects of site.py could be cached, reimplemented, >> or stripped out entirely. I'd personally love to see .pth >> support removed. > > The startup code is currently underspecified and underdocumented, > and quite fragile as a result. It represents 20+ years of organic > growth without any systematic refactoring to simplify and > streamline things. > > That's what PEP 432 aims to address, and is something I now expect > to have time to get back to for Python 3.5. And yes, one thing > those changes should enable is the creation of system Python > runtimes on Linux that initialise faster than the current > implementation.
This is terrific news and something I greatly anticipate taking advantage of! But the great many of us still on 2.7 likely won't see a benefit, correct? How insane would it be for people to do things like pass -S in the shebang and manually implement the parts of site.py that are actually needed? _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
