Python performance

Cameron Laird claird at
Tue Mar 7 22:52:29 CET 2000

In article <m3og8q8p3n.fsf at>,
Michael Hudson  <mwh21 at> wrote:
>claird at (Cameron Laird) writes:
>> 			.
>> 			.
>> 			.
>> There have, in fact, been several Python implementations already <URL:
>> They look "major" to me, although I can imagine you might be setting the
>> boundaries in a different place from me.
>They don't rate major when compared to cmucl, Allegro Common Lisp or
>Harlequins LispWorks.  Not by a long shot, not yet.
I entirely agree.  If those are the comparisons,
yes, absolutely, LISP has much more serious and
mature independent implementations.
		[other stuff that
		also amounted to
		negotiating a com-
		mon lexicon]
>few days.  You just can't make Python fast for this (at present).
>(and to those that say "implement those bits in C": go away, that's
>not the point I'm making here).
>I ended up translating it to Haskell.
Cool!  Have you written that up?  I'd like to
see a project where Haskell was chosen over
Python for performance.
>PS: Before some bright spark suggests I use NumPy: I've been doing
>number theory ...
What kind of number theory?  Can you say this
in other words?  Are you after very fast "ex-
tended-precision" arithmetic, good support
for lazy {maps,sequences,iterators,...}, that
sort of thing?  This is number theory over the
natural numbers?
If you're simply willing to express the calcu-
lations of the prime number theorem in terms
of Mayan calendrical algorithms for least com-
mon multiple, you can probably find Python
accelerators.  That's surely a small price to

Cameron Laird <claird at>

More information about the Python-list mailing list