data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0f8ec/0f8eca326d99e0699073a022a66a77b162e23683" alt=""
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Eric Fahlgren <ericfahlgren@gmail.com> wrote:
I think that's pessimistic and unrealistic. If Python were twice as fast as it is now, it would mean that scripts could process twice as much data in
Steven D'Aprano Saturday, January 09, 2016 19:32: the same time as they do now. How is that not meaningful?
Sometimes I work hard to get a 5% or 10% improvement in speed of a
function, because it's worth it. Doubling the speed is something I can only dream about.
Often when I hear people complain about "tiny" improvements, I change the context: "Ok, I'm going to raise your salary 5%, or is that too small and you don't want it?" Suddenly that 5% looks pretty good.
Although realistically, it's more like saying "If you put in enough overtime, I'll raise by 5% the rate you get paid for one of the many types of work you do". Evaluating that depends on what proportion of your salary comes from that type of work. 5% across the board is pretty good. 5% to one function is only worth serious effort if that's a hot spot. But broadly I do agree - 5% is significant. ChrisA