Python performance

Gareth McCaughan Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
Wed Mar 8 23:53:37 CET 2000


"see_plus_plus at my-deja.com" writes:

> When it comes to non-critical, low-performance applications,
> Perl/Tcl/Python/etc. will have their chance to raise their voices.

Pick an application. Any application (almost). I bet you that
at least 80% of it is "non-critical, low-performance". So
write the performance-critical bits in C or, if you really
need to, assembler, and the rest in a higher-level language.
Bingo! Best of both worlds.

There's good reason to believe that people writing in
higher-level languages produce code faster, and that the
code they produce is more robust. Sometimes there's a
cost in speed; but *it doesn't matter*.

Not to mention the fact that working at a higher level
frees up the brain to spot the *big* optimisations,
which can make more difference than the piddling
constant factors you get from choosing C rather than
Python (or your favourite higher-level language).

And, of course, *some* higher level languages can do
what C does nearly as fast as C does. Common Lisp, for
instance; there are some very impressive compilers for
Common Lisp.

So what was that you were saying about the omnipotent
all-embracing grandiloquent supernal C? Ah yes. It's more
popular. How exciting.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan  Gareth.McCaughan at pobox.com
sig under construction



More information about the Python-list mailing list