Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #89621
| Path | csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!news.swapon.de!news.panservice.it!feed.xsnews.nl!border02.ams.xsnews.nl!feeder04.ams.xsnews.nl!abp001.ams.xsnews.nl!frontend-F10-06.ams.news.kpn.nl |
|---|---|
| From | Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Python is not bad ;-) |
| Organization | Decebal Computing |
| References | <87mw1q9jqw.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> <mailman.121.1430385051.3680.python-list@python.org> |
| X-Face | "(y8cC@tg_12{">GF'UXTW]FHI2wMiZNrnf'1EFQ&O#$m:f#O7+7}kR<J%a^F2lh4[N~Yz4 nSp#c+aQo1b5=?HcNEkQ7QzF<])O3X4MDL/AYjys&*mt>,v+Pti8=Vi/Z"g^?b"E |
| X-Homepage | http://www.decebal.nl/ |
| Date | Thu, 30 Apr 2015 13:10:09 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87lhh9x46m.fsf@Equus.decebal.nl> (permalink) |
| User-Agent | Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) |
| Cancel-Lock | sha1:yhsY7eemJdaUCEeN+0HfawGWqnc= |
| MIME-Version | 1.0 |
| Content-Type | text/plain; charset=utf-8 |
| Content-Transfer-Encoding | 8bit |
| Lines | 37 |
| NNTP-Posting-Host | 81.207.62.244 |
| X-Trace | 1430393332 news.kpn.nl 21095 81.207.62.244@kpn/81.207.62.244:37546 |
| Xref | csiph.com comp.lang.python:89621 |
Show key headers only | View raw
Op Thursday 30 Apr 2015 11:10 CEST schreef Ben Finney: >> I like it that the code is concise and clear. But also that the >> performance is not bad. > > The former is a property of Python, which is a programming language. > I agree with your assessment :-) > > The latter is not a property of Python; a programming language > doesn't have runtime performance. Rather, runtime performance is a > property of some specific *implementation* — that is, the runtime > Python machine. > > There are numerous Python runtimes, and they have different > performance characteristics on different hardware and operating > systems. > > <URL:https://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonImplementations> > > You might be talking about performance on CPython. But you might > not! I don't know. I understood when you did not explicitly mention it, it normally is CPython. And in my case it is. I should try it also in Jython, because Clojure runs in de JVM. > Have you looked at PyPy – Python implemented in Python – and > compared its performance? Not yet. Busy hacking away. :-D -- Cecil Westerhof Senior Software Engineer LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/cecilwesterhof
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 09:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-30 19:10 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-30 13:16 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 20:52 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:30 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 17:03 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 19:56 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-05-02 19:44 +1200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 10:26 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:10 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 19:25 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:58 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:22 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 20:42 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:07 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 21:21 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:32 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 14:42 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:45 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 01:55 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 16:50 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 18:53 +0300
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:17 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 12:29 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 11:33 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:35 -0400
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 13:12 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 15:56 +1000
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:10 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 08:03 -0600
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 18:11 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-04-30 19:59 +0200
Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:05 +0200
csiph-web