INADA Naoki writes:
> For example, http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64q/php.html
> In Japanese, many people compares language performance by
> microbench like fibbonacci.
True enough. But as a teacher in a Japanese engineering school, I am
ashamed to see that posted to a public list.
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 19:32, INADA Naoki wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Barnert
> wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm very interested in it.
>> >
>> > Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster t
On Jan 25, 2016, at 19:32, INADA Naoki wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm very interested in it.
>> >
>> > Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
>> > Python 3 is slower than Python 2.
>>
>> S
Do you say I and many people are so fool?
People use same algorithm on every language when compares base language
performance [1].
[1] There are no solid definition about "Base language performance".
But it includes function call, method lookup, GC. It may include basic
string and arithmetic o
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 2:32 PM, INADA Naoki wrote:
>
> I know.
> But people compares language speed by simple microbench like fibbonacci.
> They doesn't use listcomp or libraries to compare *language* speed.
>
Well, that's a stupid way to decide on a language. Here, look: Python
is faster than C
On January 25, 2016 9:32:07 PM CST, INADA Naoki wrote:
>On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Barnert
>wrote:
>
>> On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki
>wrote:
>> >
>> > I'm very interested in it.
>> >
>> > Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
>> > Python 3 is slower than Python 2
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Andrew Barnert wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki wrote:
> >
> > I'm very interested in it.
> >
> > Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
> > Python 3 is slower than Python 2.
>
> Says who?
>
For example, http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.
On Jan 25, 2016, at 18:21, INADA Naoki wrote:
>
> I'm very interested in it.
>
> Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
> Python 3 is slower than Python 2.
Says who?
That was certainly true in the 3.2 days, but nowadays, most things that differ
seem to be faster in 3.x. Maybe it's just
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 at 18:22 INADA Naoki wrote:
> I'm very interested in it.
>
> Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
> Python 3 is slower than Python 2.
> Performance is a attractive feature. Python 3 lacks it.
>
That is not a fair statement to make about Python 3. It entirely depends
I'm very interested in it.
Ruby 2.2 and PHP 7 are faster than Python 2.
Python 3 is slower than Python 2.
Performance is a attractive feature. Python 3 lacks it.
How can I help your work?
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Victor Stinner
wrote:
> 2016-01-25 22:51 GMT+01:00 Sven R. Kunze :
> > -
2016-01-25 22:51 GMT+01:00 Sven R. Kunze :
> - they provide a great infrastructure for optimizing CPython AND
> extending/experimenting Python as an ecosystem
I hope that these API will create more optimizer projects than just
fatoptimizer.
For example, I expect more specialized optimizers like n
On Jan 25, 2016, at 14:46, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> You can design an AST optimizer to compile some functions to C and
> then register them as specialized code at runtime. I have a side
> project to use Cython and/or pythran to specialize some functions
> using type annotation on parameters.
Th
Hi,
2016-01-25 23:28 GMT+01:00 Andrew Barnert :
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 13:43, Victor Stinner wrote:
>>
>> According to microbenchmarks, the most promising optimizations are
>> functions inlining (Python function calls are slow :-/) and specialize
>> the code for the type of arguments.
>
> Can you
On Mon, 25 Jan 2016 at 14:30 Andrew Barnert via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> On Jan 25, 2016, at 13:43, Victor Stinner
> wrote:
> >
> > According to microbenchmarks, the most promising optimizations are
> > functions inlining (Python function calls are slow :-/) and specialize
> >
On Jan 25, 2016, at 13:43, Victor Stinner wrote:
>
> According to microbenchmarks, the most promising optimizations are
> functions inlining (Python function calls are slow :-/) and specialize
> the code for the type of arguments.
Can you specialize a function with a C API function, or only with
On Jan 25, 2016, at 07:16 PM, Victor Stinner wrote:
>Barry also wrote: "Did you address my suggestion on python-ideas to
>make the new C API optionally compiled in?"
>
>Well, it is an option, but I would prefer to have the API for AST
>optimizer directly built in Python.
In my plan, it would be,
Hi Victor,
I encourage you to proceed here. I would love to see your PEPs (509-511)
incorporated into CPython. It's not that I consider Python slow
(although some folks claim so), but performance improvements are always
welcome; especially when I glance over diagrams like those:
http://blog.c
Hi,
2016-01-25 22:20 GMT+01:00 Ludovic Gasc :
> Just thanks for this big contribution.
> And maybe this project could give new ideas to optimize Python, who knows ?
Sorry for my long email. I should try to summarize next time :-) In
short: FAT Python is not fast today, but it will be faster if yo
Hi,
Just thanks for this big contribution.
And maybe this project could give new ideas to optimize Python, who knows ?
At least, you've win a beer for the FOSDEM event this week-end ;-)
Have a nice week.
--
Ludovic Gasc (GMLudo)
http://www.gmludo.eu/
2016-01-25 19:16 GMT+01:00 Victor Stinner
Hi,
On 01/25/2016 01:28 AM, Raymond Hettinger wrote:
>
>> - At least it should follow PEP 7 ;-)
>
> Please don't do this. It misses the spirit of how the style-guides are
> intended to be used.
>
> "I personally hate with a vengeance that there are tools named after style
> guide PEPs that cla
Hi,
Summary: FAT Python is not faster, but it will be ;-)
--
When I started the FAT Python as a fork of CPython 3.6, I put
everything in the same repository. Last weeks, I focused on splitting
my giant patch (10k lines) into small reviewable patches. I wrote 3
PEP (509 dict version, 510 function
21 matches
Mail list logo
