Python optimization (was Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?)
josiah.carlson at sbcglobal.net
Mon Jun 11 08:34:49 CEST 2007
John Nagle wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>> Constant folding happens regardless of optimization level in current
>> So really, assert and docstring removals. Eh.
> It's hard to optimize Python code well without global analysis.
> The problem is that you have to make sure that a long list of "wierd
> things", like modifying code or variables via getattr/setattr, aren't
> happening before doing significant optimizations. Without that,
> you're doomed to a slow implementation like CPython.
> ShedSkin, which imposes some restrictions, is on the right track here.
> The __slots__ feature is useful but doesn't go far enough.
> Python could get much, much faster. Right now CPython is said to be 60X
> than C. It should be possible to get at least an order of magnitude over
Don't get me wrong; I'm all for adding optimizations, I was merely
expressing that currently, 'python -OO' doesn't really do a whole lot.
I've a long-time user of psyco, have mucked about with
scipy.weave.inline, and have been a heavy user of Pyrex and C. If there
was a method of offering some simple optimization cues to the Python
runtime to improve its speed, I would be happy to add them when I really
care about speed (I already do more than that when writing Pyrex). The
real question is whether we can get a practical implementation of these
optimizations as easy to use as psyco.
More information about the Python-list