Never trust the program you're running to give you accurate time.
I thought (and think) that the measurements are sufficiently accurate, and the differences sufficiently marked to support the speed claim. I also ran the test with much longer cycles, checked the reported time with wall-clock time, and obtained comparable results. Repeating each test several times, and discarding outliers reduces the impact of other processes. What sort of inaccuracies are you concerned about here?
Of course, this is far too narrow a test from which to draw any broad conclusions about the speed of the implementation.
Use
'time python foo.py' instead.
I presume you mean on ~nix. I'm using Windows, and I'm not aware of a similar facility (which doesn't mean it doesn't exist).
If you're going to do that put most of
the code in a seperate file that gets imported so the bytecode gets
cached since IronPython is precompiled to IL.
I compared pre-compiled functions in each case. Can you explain why what you suggest is fairer?
Other than that, cool.
It is, isn't it ;-)
Michael
_______________________________________________ users-ironpython.com mailing list users-ironpython.com@lists.ironpython.com http://lists.ironpython.com/listinfo.cgi/users-ironpython.com
