On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 01:38:01AM -0500, Terry Reedy wrote:
> It is no secret that Python's interpreted function calls are slower
> than function calls compiled to machine code and that Python's
> infinite precision integer arithmetic is slower  that machine int
> arithmetic.  So there is almost no point in combining both in a
> naive drastically inefficient algorithm and declaring that Python is
> slower.

I never said the benchmarks chosen were awesome...  :-)  What I'm
saying is this:

1. Insistence that the most efficient python implementation of Fib
   completely misses the point (and defeats the purpose) of the
   benchmarks, and as such the entire article is lost in the weeds.

2. Inasmuch as someone might want to measure the performance of
   recursive function calls in a particular language, the choice
   of recursively implementing fib is a fine one, and useful for that

3. If you want to say that choosing the most efficient implementation
   in Python is the only way to do a fair comparison, then you must
   also choose the most efficient implementation in Julia, which this
   is not, by all appearances.  But again, this misses the point of
   the benchmark and defeats its purpose.

Now if you want to complain that the purpose is silly, I won't even
argue that...  In 30 years of writing code I don't think I've ever
imiplemented a recursive solution to any problem that wasn't purely
academic.  Maybe once or twice... maybe.  But the purpose is what it
is, and arguing that it must be done a different way is bogus.


Reply via email to