X-Received: by 10.107.12.10 with SMTP id w10mr9872669ioi.5.1457758980135; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:03:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.50.103.68 with SMTP id fu4mr135165igb.9.1457758980114; Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:03:00 -0800 (PST)
Path: csiph.com!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!1.eu.feeder.erje.net!newspeer1.nac.net!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nt3no915736igb.0!news-out.google.com!pn7ni7374igb.0!nntp.google.com!nt3no915731igb.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 21:02:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.23.1457749230.12893.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=117.195.42.248; posting-account=mBpa7woAAAAGLEWUUKpmbxm-Quu5D8ui
NNTP-Posting-Host: 117.195.42.248
References: <mailman.8.1457732171.12893.python-list@python.org> <nbvqg5$3cm$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.23.1457749230.12893.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <9bfa08ea-2ae4-482c-85a4-1fa45944dfb4@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?)
From: Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 05:03:00 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Lines: 18
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:104669

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 7:50:43 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:16 PM, BartC  wrote:
> > You'd be surprised how much any kind of program relies on adhoc integer
> > operations. It doesn't need to work with large int arrays for them to be
> > important. (Look at the benchmark below: the inner loop is nearly all
> > integer ops.)
> 
> Sure, but in real-world code, there are other considerations than just
> integer performance. If someone waves a magic wand and improves
> machine-word integer performance, great, but there are other calls on
> core dev time.

I guess that BartC (or is it Bartc?) is describing something that is a 
commonplace in compiler world but not so well known elsewhere, viz.
a simple operation like an array/attribute-access etc, which from a HLL pov
may have no 'operations' at all may emit a slew of integer operations when
compiled.  Which is not so surprising if you consider that apart from
control-flow there is nothing going on in a CPU beside arithmetic; there
is no datatype beside integers of various sizes and (un)signed combos.