On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 1:45 PM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/10/26 James Mills <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 11:23 AM, BJörn Lindqvist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> How are you getting those numbers? 330 μs is still pretty fast, isn't > >> it? :) Most disks have a seek time of 10-20 ms so it seem implausible > >> to me that Ruby would be able to cold start in 47 ms. > > > > $ time python -c "pass" > > > > real 0m0.051s > > user 0m0.036s > > sys 0m0.008s > > Pedro was talking about cold startup time: > > $ sudo sh -c "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" > $ time python -c "pass" > > real 0m0.627s > user 0m0.016s > sys 0m0.008s > > That is quite a lot and for short scripts the startup time can easily > dominate the total time. > > > And yes I agree. the CPython interpreter startup times is > > a stupid thing to be worrying about, especially since that > > is never the bottleneck. > > I disagree. The extra time Python takes to start makes it unsuitable > for many uses. For example, if you write a simple text editor then > Pythons longer startup time might be to much. > You must be in a real big hurry if half a second matters that much to you. Maybe if it took 5 seconds for the interpreter to start up, I could understand having a problem with the start up time.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
