On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 5:46 PM, Gabriel Genellina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1 This thread is stupid and pointless. >> Even for a so-called cold startup 0.5s is fast enough! > > I don't see the need to be rude. > And I DO care for Python startup time and memory footprint, and others do > too. Even if it's a stupid thing (for you).
I apologize. I do not see the point comparing Python with RUby however, or Python with anything else. So instead of coming up with arbitary problems, why don't we come up with solutions for "Improving Interpreter Startup Speeds" ? I have only found that using the -S option speeds it up significantly, but that's only if you're not using any site packages and only using the built in libraries. Can site.py be improved ? --JamesMills -- -- -- "Problems are solved by method" -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
