On 11 October 2016 at 17:49, Nick Coghlan
On 12 October 2016 at 02:16, Elliot Gorokhovsky
wrote: So I thought, wow, this will give some nice numbers! But I underestimated the power of this optimization. You have no idea. It's crazy. This is just insane. This is crazy.
Not to take away from the potential for speed improvements (which do indeed seem interesting), but I'd ask that folks avoid using mental health terms to describe test results that we find unbelievable. There are plenty of other adjectives we can use, and a text-based medium like email gives us a chance to proofread our posts before we send them.
I'd also suggest toning down the rhetoric a bit (all-caps title, "the contents of this message may be dangerous for readers with heart conditions" etc. Your results do seem good, but it's a little hard to work out what you actually did, and how your results were produced, through the hype. It'll be much better when someone else has a means to reproduce your results to confirm them. In all honestly, people have been working on Python's performance for a long time now, and I'm more inclined to think that a 50% speedup is a mistake rather than an opportunity that's been missed for all that time. I'd be happy to be proved wrong, but for now I'm skeptical. Please continue working on this - I'd love my skepticism to be proved wrong! Paul