Speed-up for loops

MRAB python at mrabarnett.plus.com
Wed Sep 8 04:07:09 CEST 2010

On 08/09/2010 02:45, BartC wrote:
> "David Cournapeau" <cournape at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.546.1283897932.29448.python-list at python.org...
>> On Sun, Sep 5, 2010 at 8:28 PM, BartC <bartc at freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> One order of magnitude (say 10-20x slower) wouldn't be so bad. That's
>>> what
>>> you might expect for a dynamically typed, interpreted language.
>> 10/20x slower than C is only reached by extremely well optimized
>> dynamic languages. It would be a tremendous achievement. If that's
> Well, that is what I do (mess around with languages and stuff).
> Getting back to the OP's code again (trivial and pointless as it might
> seem), I got these results:
> C (gcc 3.4.5 -O3) 0.8 secs
> C (DMC-o) 2.3 secs
> C (lccwin32 -O) 2.9 secs
> My last interpreter 12.6 secs dynamically typed language
> (or 4.5 secs when told the type of 'a'; but that's
> cheating a little..)
> Python 3 177.0 secs
> That's why I was questioning the latter's performance in for-loops. But now
> that I know a bit more about Python (having dynamic everything) the figure
> is not so surprising. However, it's still slow!
>> what you are after, look at LUA with its JIT, or scheme + stalin.
> I've seen LuaJIT in action. It's timing for this test is 1.5 secs:
> forget being only 10x slower than C, it's faster than some C versions!
> (I'm sure it must be cheating somewhere...)
If you'd like to direct your skills to making CPython faster, without
diminishing its flexibility, I'm sure it'll be welcomed. The source is
all public, you know! :-)

More information about the Python-list mailing list