Two questions about Python..
Cameron Laird
claird at starbase.neosoft.com
Wed Nov 28 09:35:20 EST 2001
In article <3C045ACA.C336DEFA at engcorp.com>,
Peter Hansen <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
>Cameron Laird wrote:
>>
>> Kragen Sitaker <kragen at pobox.com> wrote:
>> >Ville Vainio <vvainio at karhu.tp.spt.fi> writes:
>> >
>> >> Ken <khirmint at hotmail.com> writes:
>> >> > I'm looking into using Python for a project, and was wondering how does
>> >> > Python rank up against other scripting languages for speed?
>> >
>> >It's about as fast as Perl, much faster than Tcl or sh, and much
>> >slower than Lua, a good Scheme, FORTH, or GhostScript, in my
>> >experience. HTH.
>>
>> And it depends, of course, on the kind of project of interest.
>> Numeric makes Python a world-beater for many problems, for
>> example.
>
>Cameron, can you confirm that by this you mean that for
>intensively numeric-processing-bound programs, the Numeric
>package effectively makes Python a *higher* performance
>solution than most/all other solutions? Or were you talking
>more about features and ease-of-use, for example?
.
.
.
Thank you, Peter, for this opportunity to clarify.
"Both" is my answer to your nicely-leading question,
although I had the former in mind when I first posted:
old-line "scientific" programs, which are bound by
speed of numeric processing, are certainly not "much
slower" in Numeric Python than even "a good Scheme" or
Lua, and are frequently faster. I write this as a fan
of Scheme and Lua. I also recognize that I don't have
as much recent experience with scientific programming
as some readers; I'm reasonably confident that I'm
working from trustworthy data, though.
--
Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html
More information about the Python-list
mailing list