String performance regression from python 3.2 to 3.3

rusi rustompmody at gmail.com
Sat Mar 16 05:26:28 CET 2013


 On Mar 16, 8:56 am, Mark Lawrence <breamore... at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16/03/2013 02:44, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>
> > Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> Thomas and Chris, would the two of you be kind enough to explain to
> morons such as myself how all the ECMAScript stuff relates to Python's
> unicode as implemented via PEP 393 as you've lost me, easily done I know.
>
> --
> Cheers.
>
> Mark Lawrence

The unicode standard is language-agnostic.
Unicode implementations exist withing a language x implementation x C-
compiler implementation x …  -- Notice the gccs in Andriy's
comparison. Do they signify?

On Mar 15, 11:04 pm, Andriy Kornatskyy <andriy.kornats... at live.com>
wrote:
> $ python3.2
> Python 3.2.3 (default, Jun 25 2012, 22:55:05)
> [GCC 4.6.3] on linux2


> $ python3.3
> Python 3.3.0 (default, Sep 29 2012, 15:35:49)
> [GCC 4.7.1] on linux


The number of actual python implementations is small -- 2.7, 3.1, 3.2,
3.3 -- at most enlarged with wides and narrows; The number of possible
implementations is large (in principle infinite) -- a small example of
a point in design-space that is not explored: eg

There are 17 planes x 2^16 chars in a plane
< 32 x 2^16
= 2^5 x 2^16
= 2^21

ie wide unicode (including the astral planes) can fit into 21 bits
ie 3 wide-chars can fit into 64 bit slot rather than 2.
Is this option worth considering? Ive no idea and I would wager that
no one does until some trials are done

So… Coming back to your question… Checking what other languages are
doing speeds up the dream->design->implement->performance-check cycle



More information about the Python-list mailing list