Peter Maas wrote:
Paul McGuire wrote:
The advance method is the most fertile place for optimization, since it is
called approximately n(n-1)/2 times (where n=2E7). I was able to trim about
25% from the Python runtime with these changes:
[...]
My results:
Your changes: 18% runtime
Magnus Lycka wrote:
Isaac Gouy wrote:
I think it is wrong to call Python very slow just because it is slower
than some other language or languages, for the same reason it would be
wrong to describe the population of the UK as very low because 60
million people is a smaller number than China
Donn Cave wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
They won't say Java. Ask them why Python is interpreted and Java isn't
and you'll have a hard time getting a decent technical answer, because
Python isn't all that different from Java in that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bengt Richter wrote:
On 29 Nov 2005 14:08:12 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't scrape programs from news-groups, if you'd like the program to
be shown on the shootout then please attach the source code to a
tracker item.
You asked for something, got a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a direct translation of the D code, maybe it's not the faster
Python implementation, and surely it's not the shorter one. But Psyco
makes it much faster (Psyco likes low level style code).
And if you contributed the program like this
Fredrik Lundh wrote:
Bengt Richter wrote:
That's not just blunt and concise, it looks like the modus operandi
of a typical volunteer/employee-exploiter (or perhaps spoiled brat,
the typical precursor to the former).
careful. his faq requires you to be nice.
/F
Be Nice! *is* one of
Paul Boddie wrote:
Steven Bethard wrote:
David Rasmussen wrote:
Faster than assembly? LOL... :)
Faster than physics? ;-)
I think the claim goes something along the lines of assembly is so
hard
to get right that if you can automatically generate it from a HLL,
not
only will it be
We don't have Python implementations for one program, and a
couple of the Python programs we do have show Error.
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/benchmark.php?test=alllang=pythonlang2=python
Please contribute missing Python programs or faster more-elegant Python
programs.
Please follow the
We don't scrape programs from news-groups, if you'd like the program to
be shown on the shootout then please attach the source code to a
tracker item.
Please follow the FAQ instructions
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/faq.php#contribute
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is a direct translation
How about the speed of execution?
There is no simple answer. Both languages use C functions which are
executed at CPU speed. But with interpreted code Python seems to be
approximately 3-4 times faster than PHP
(http://dada.perl.it/shootout/).
The Win32 Computer Language Shootout hasn't
We've made it somewhat easier to contribute programs.
No need to subscribe to the mailing-list.
No need for a user-id or login.
See the FAQ How can I contribute a program?
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/faq.php
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
The Language Shootout at http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/ has code
samples in many languages, both interpreted and compiled, including
the
ones you mentioned. Don't trust the lines-of-code statistics, though
--
the LOC measure is wrongly shown as zero for several codes, and
comment
lines
12 matches
Mail list logo
