[Slightly-OT] Wasn't Google supposed to be "avid Python-Users" ?
mwh at python.net
Thu Feb 7 14:25:54 CET 2002
Michael Abbott <michael at rcp.co.uk> writes:
> Michael Hudson <mwh at python.net> wrote in news:uk7tpa574.fsf at python.net:
> > Michael Abbott <michael at rcp.co.uk> writes:
> >> I reckon to pay a cost of perhaps a factor of 100 in raw CPU for the
> >> privilege of using Python.
> > But not over Java, surely? I guess a JIT or native compilation will
> > help, but...
> I think so. Java byte codes are pretty low level, and don't have to do
> very much, and of course JIT or native compilation can be *very* effective.
> Python byte codes are, on the other hand, much more powerful, and have to
> do quite a lot of run-time work.
Fair enough. Don't know much about the Java world.
> If you're doubtful, take a quick peek at what the Python byte code
> interpreter does to implement a method call (I'm thinking of call_object in
> ceval.c). There's nothing wrong with this (that's not my point), but
> there's quite a lot of work to be done (including memory allocation, I'm
I do know quite a lot about the Python world though :)
> This is one of the most widely used operations in the language (excepting,
> perhaps, method lookup), and can be reduced in a natively compiled language
> to a small handful of instructions or even eliminated (when we're lucky).
> My factor of a 100 is a guess; am I wrong? I believe it's fair.
In my experience, it's a bit of an over-estimate. Depends what you're
doing, of course. I find I tend to optimize the straight line bits of
code, which probably doesn't yield the greatest improvement, in some
sense, but not writing the not-straight-line bits of code in C is the
reason I use Python in the first place...
Every day I send overnight packages filled with rabid weasels to
people who use frames for no good reason.
-- The Usenet Oracle, Oracularity #1017-1
More information about the Python-list