Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #95142
| From | Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Subject | Re: Python speed |
| Date | 2015-08-07 23:26 +0200 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <mq37nl$j18$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <2261c8c6-77ba-453d-9205-0a922fa67c81@googlegroups.com><04b7cdd0-1eb0-4378-9d14-38e97b4456a7@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1312.1438967902.3674.python-list@python.org> |
Am 07.08.2015 um 19:17 schrieb Laura Creighton: > you > really only are doing crunching, and your crunching is done > in loops which run for a significant amount of time -- then PyPy > is generally faster than Fortran. PyPy faster than Fortran in a tight number-crunching loop? Sorry I find this very hard to believe. I could accept that PyPy can match the speed of Fortran in these cases, but exceeding seems highly unlikely. Was it a mistake, or do you have a reference that shows how PyPy can be faster than Fortran? I agree with the rest what you have said. Christian
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Python speed rogerh906@gmail.com - 2015-08-07 07:08 -0700
Re: Python speed beliavsky@aol.com - 2015-08-07 09:57 -0700
Re: Python speed Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-08-07 19:17 +0200
Re: Python speed Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-08-07 23:26 +0200
Re: Python speed Laura Creighton <lac@openend.se> - 2015-08-08 00:01 +0200
Re: Python speed rogerh906@gmail.com - 2015-08-07 12:30 -0700
Re: Python speed Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-07 23:57 +0000
csiph-web