On January 25, 2016 9:32:07 PM CST, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Barnert <abarn...@yahoo.com> >wrote: > >> On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki <songofaca...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> > >> > I'm very interested in it. >> > >> > Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2. >> > Python 3 is slower than Python 2. >> >> Says who? >> > >For example, http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/php.html >In Japanese, many people compares language performance by microbench >like >fibbonacci. >
...does writing Fibonacci in a foreign language make a performance difference? Or did you mean "In Japan?" > >> >> That was certainly true in the 3.2 days, but nowadays, most things >that >> differ seem to be faster in 3.x. > > >Python is little faster than ever in these years. >But PHP and Ruby are much more faster than these years. > >Matz announced Ruby 3x3. Ruby hackers will make more effort to optimize >ruby. >http://engineering.appfolio.com/appfolio-engineering/2015/11/18/ruby-3x3 > > > >> Maybe it's just the kinds of programs I write, but speedup in >decoding >> UTF-8 that's usually ASCII (and then processing the decoded unicode >when >> it's usually 1/4th the size), faster listcomps, and faster datetime >seem to >> matter more than slower logging or slower imports. And that's just >when >> running the same code; when you actually use new features, yield from >is >> much faster than looping over yield; scandir blows away listdir; >asyncio >> blows away asyncore or threading even harder; etc. >> > >I know. >But people compares language speed by simple microbench like >fibbonacci. >They doesn't use listcomp or libraries to compare *language* speed. > > >> Maybe if you do different things, you have a different experience. >But if >> you have a specific problem, you'd do a lot better to file specific >bugs >> for that problem than to just hope that everything magically gets so >much >> faster that your bottleneck no longer matters. >> > >I did it sometimes. >But I'd like to base language performance like function call more >faster. > > >> >> > Performance is a attractive feature. Python 3 lacks it. >> >> When performance matters, people don't use Python 2, Ruby, or PHP, >any >> more than they use Python 3. Or, rather, they use _any_ of those >languages >> for the 95% of their code that doesn't matter, and C (often through >> existing libraries like NumPy--and try to find a good equivalent of >that >> for Ruby or PHP) for the 5% that does. > > >In the case of Web devs, many people choose main language from PHP, >Ruby >and Python. >When peformance matters, they choose sub language from node.js, Go and >Scala. > >While performance is not a matter when choosing first language, slowest >of >three makes bad impression >and people feel less attractive about Python. -- Sent from my Nexus 5 with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. _______________________________________________ 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
