On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 9:38 PM, Antoine Pitrou <solip...@pitrou.net> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:29:59 +1000 > Nick Coghlan <ncogh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Anecdotal, non-reproducible performance figures are *not* the way to >> go about serious optimisation efforts. > > What about anecdotal *and* reproducible performance figures? :) > I may be half-joking, but we already have a set of py3k-compatible > benchmarks and, besides, sometimes a timeit invocation gives a good > idea of whether an approach is fruitful or not. > While a permanent public reference with historical tracking of > performance figures is even better, let's not freeze everything until > it's ready. > (for example, do we need to wait for speed.python.org before PEP 393 is > accepted?)
Yeah, I'd neglected the idea of just running perf.py for pre- and post-patch performance comparisons. You're right that that can generate sufficient info to make a well-informed decision. I'd still really like it if some of the people advocating that we care about CPython performance actually volunteered to spearhead the effort to get speed.python.org up and running, though. As far as I know, the hardware's spinning idly waiting to be given work to do :P Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
