Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #66925 > unrolled thread

Mac vs. Linux for Python Development

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Mac vs. Linux for Python Development twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 00:43 -0800
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 19:58 +1100
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 02:17 -0800
        Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-02-23 21:24 +1100
        Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2014-02-23 03:49 -0800
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Andriy Kornatskyy <andriy.kornatskyy@live.com> - 2014-02-23 11:51 +0200
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development "Günther Dietrich" <gd.usenet@spamfence.net> - 2014-02-23 12:34 +0100
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Dave Cook <davecook@nowhere.net> - 2014-02-24 03:37 +0000
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2014-02-24 10:33 -0500
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 10:34 -0700
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2014-02-24 10:42 -0700
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-02-25 05:37 +1100
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-02-24 19:35 +0000
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-02-23 09:20 -0500
    Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development "Mark H. Harris" <harrismh777@gmail.com> - 2014-03-01 14:32 -0800
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 09:57 +1100
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Ned Deily <nad@acm.org> - 2014-03-01 15:07 -0800
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2014-03-02 07:51 +0200
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 17:57 +1100
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development "Frank Millman" <frank@chagford.com> - 2014-03-02 09:35 +0200
      Re: Mac vs. Linux for Python Development Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-03-02 20:58 +1100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#66925 — Mac vs. Linux for Python Development

Hello,

I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.

I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's the support for numpy and scipy?  How are the IDEs?

Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there are any significant downsides to python dev on OsX.  

Thanks

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#66928

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 7:43 PM, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.
>
> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's the support for numpy and scipy?  How are the IDEs?
>
> Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there are any significant downsides to python dev on OsX.

There have been some issues with running Python on OSX, so you'd want
to make sure you're running the very latest; for instance, 3.3.4 fixed
some issues with 10.9 Mavericks. Generally, I'd say you'll do
reasonably well on either platform, as long as you're happy with the
editor and related tools; but personally, I love my Linux for
development. I use Debian (Ubuntu is closely related to Debian), with
Xfce, SciTE, and roughly ten thousand terminal windows - that's my
"IDE". SciTE is available for a Mac, and there are plenty of other
excellent text editors as well, so you shouldn't have any trouble on
that score.

Your text editor is probably more important to your productivity than
your OS is. Whether you're on Windows, Mac OS, or Linux, or something
more obscure like OS/2, you can run your scripts just fine (OS/2 isn't
an officially supported Python platform, but I have a third-party
build that works fine for me); the important part is getting code from
your brain through your fingers into the computer, and a good editor
can help hugely with that. You'll hear advocates for vi/vim, emacs,
and myriad others, but ultimately, just grab one that looks good and
get to know it :)

Personally, I'd recommend going Linux, for the openness; among other
benefits, it's generally easier to build C stuff from source on Linux
than on pretty much any other platform. But you should be able to use
your preferred Mac just fine, and learning something new is a cost
that's hard to justify.

Just do be sure (and yes, I'm reiterating this) that you're on the
very latest Python you can get. At the moment, that's 3.3.4, but soon
there'll be a 3.4 release.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66932

Hi Chris, thanks for the reply.  

Yes,  I agree. The main consideration is always the development experience.  However, I do know that python has had some problems with other OSs (notoriously windows) and I want to avoid unnecessary compatibility issues. 

Can you elaborate on some of the problems running python on OSX (or point me to a relavant link)?

Thanks

Tommer

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66933

On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:17 PM, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you elaborate on some of the problems running python on OSX (or point me to a relavant link)?

You could poke around on the archives of this list and python-dev, but
the best link I have handy is this, which has only a brief note:

http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.3.4/

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66939

In article 
<CAPTjJmpHGkJ=N+wwWkpaTmbihbN38yWm+_6J7zf5+UvA_DXJ4A@mail.gmail.com>,
 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2014 at 9:17 PM, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Can you elaborate on some of the problems running python on OSX (or point 
> > me to a relavant link)?
> 
> You could poke around on the archives of this list and python-dev, but
> the best link I have handy is this, which has only a brief note:
> 
> http://www.python.org/download/releases/3.3.4/

The primary issue for 10.9 was an incompatible change in the system 
libedit's readline compatibility API which could cause Pythons built on 
earlier versions of OS X to crash on 10.9 when used interactively.  
Fixed in the current 2.7.6 and 3.3.4 and 3.4.0rc python.org installers.  
Also, if you are going to use IDLE or Tkinter with a python.org Python, 
make sure you have the latest ActiveTcl 8.5.15.0 (actually .1) 
installed, if possible.

http://www.python.org/download/mac/tcltk/

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad@acm.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66930

I used to do core python development using debian linux (gnome). All way long work just fine. However recently I have had a chance to try MacOS X 10.8 and later 10.9. I used macports.org to setup everything I found “missing”.

Vim works fine regardless the platform… quite happy.

Thanks.

Andriy Kornatskyy

On Feb 23, 2014, at 10:43 AM, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.
> 
> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's the support for numpy and scipy?  How are the IDEs?
> 
> Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there are any significant downsides to python dev on OsX.  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66938

twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:

>I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but will 
>soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the option of 
>using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts on the 
>pros and cons of each.

I've been working with Windows, Unix/Linux (X) and Max OS since 1989. In 
my experience the GUI of Mac OS is the most user friendly of the the 
three.


>Specifically, how's the support for numpy and scipy?  
>How are the IDEs?
>
>Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there are any 
>significant downsides to python dev on OsX.  

Eclipse and the PyDev and MercurialEclipse plug-ins are available for 
Windows, Linux and Mac OS.
So, if I had the choice, I would go with the Mac.



Best regards,

Günther

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66966

On 2014-02-23, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on
> Ubuntu but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.
> I have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to
> hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's
> the support for numpy and scipy?

I had problems trying to build my own scipy stack on Maverick, but
installing Anaconda's Python distribution solved that.

Overall, Python works very well on OS X, but feels better integrated
to me under Linux.

I'll note that Macs are very popular among the members of pythonsd.  I
think this is particularly true of the Django developers.

Dave Cook

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66984

On Feb 23, 2014, at 3:43 AM, twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.
> 
> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's the support for numpy and scipy?  How are the IDEs?
> 
> Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there are any significant downsides to python dev on OsX.  
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -- 
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

In addition to the other excellent answers you've received, I'd point you to

	http://stackoverflow.com/questions/81584/what-ide-to-use-for-python

where there is a fairly extensive comparison chart of IDEs, features, and supported OSes.

And, by the way, I'm a very happy camper using BBEdit and WingIDE (the name collision is purely coincidental).

Thanks,
Bill

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66985

On 02/23/2014 01:43 AM, twiz wrote:
> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu
> but will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I
> have the option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to
> hear any thoughts on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's
> the support for numpy and scipy?  How are the IDEs?

I know a lot of Mac developers that love the Sublime text editor.  And
if you combine it with https://github.com/lunixbochs/actualvim, it's
even better.

Personally OS X's focus policy drives me absolutely bonkers as a
developer.  And I can't function without alt-middle clicking to size
windows and alt-click to move windows.

> Since I generally like working with a Mac, I'd like to hear if there
> are any significant downsides to python dev on OsX.

You can always run a virtual machine on OS X and have the best of both
worlds.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66986

On 02/24/2014 10:34 AM, Michael Torrie wrote:
> I know a lot of Mac developers that love the Sublime text editor.  And
> if you combine it with https://github.com/lunixbochs/actualvim, it's
> even better.

Sublime is actually on all platforms, and lots of people like it.

http://www.sublimetext.com/

Personally I just use vim on any platform.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#66995

On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 5:25 AM, Jean-Michel Pichavant
<jeanmichel@sequans.com> wrote:
> If you go for Linux, know that ubuntu would not be the first choice, ubuntu prefers user experience over stability. Debian for instance is a distribution largely used in the industry.
>

What you'll generally find, actually, is that there's very little
effective difference between one distro and another - there's a lot of
usability difference between, say, Xfce and GNOME3 and Mate and Unity
and so on, but you can get each of those on any Linux that supports
them (personally, I like Xfce, which I use with Debian; you can get
Xubuntu which comes with it). There's also a huge difference between
Python 2.4 and Python 2.7, but beyond the fact that Red Hat 5 happens
to ship with 2.4 and Debian Wheezy happens to ship with 2.7, there's
no connection between that and your distro. Especially among the
families of related distros (Debian and Red Hat being the patriarchs
of huge family trees, and Ubuntu being head of a major sub-tree under
Debian), you'll usually find there's not a huge amount of fundamental
difference.

So pick any distro that strikes your fancy! Try it out! If it doesn't
work out, pick a different one. Start with one that your friends use
(if you have any), that way you can get immediate help.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67357

On 2014-02-24, Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

> So pick any distro that strikes your fancy! Try it out! If it doesn't
> work out, pick a different one. Start with one that your friends use
> (if you have any), that way you can get immediate help.

That last bit of advice shouldn't be overlooked.  If you're new to
Linux, just about any mainstream distro for which you can easily get
help is going to be a go smoother than one for which you're left with
nothing but Google and web-based forums full of incoherent advice and
wrong answers.

Personally, I prefer Gentoo, but it's probably a bit too
nuts-and-bolts for many people.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! I'm ZIPPY the PINHEAD
                                  at               and I'm totally committed
                              gmail.com            to the festive mode.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67351

In article <2465a8c7-ce0e-4606-ad3b-9135c96e3e4c@googlegroups.com>,
 twiz <twizansk@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread 
> that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.
> 
> I've been developing with python recreationally for a while on Ubuntu but 
> will soon be transitioning to full-time python development.  I have the 
> option of using a Mac or Ubuntu environment and I'd like to hear any thoughts 
> on the pros and cons of each. Specifically, how's the support for numpy and 
> scipy?  How are the IDEs?

Which is a better food: asparagus or cauliflower?

I run Python (including scipy, numpy, iPython, matplotlib, statsmodels, 
scikit-learn, pandas, etc) on both OSX and Ubuntu.  For server and 
back-end work, I find linux a better platform, partly because there 
tends to be a larger selection of pre-built packages available 
(although, I'm not even sure I can defend that statement).

On the other hand, I despise every linux desktop I've ever worked with.  
I've settled into a mode of OSX on my desktops (I have a 8 GB MacBook 
Pro at home, and a Mini on my desk in the office), and Ubuntu for all my 
"real work".

I'm not a huge fan of IDEs, so I can't give you much advice there.  I 
pretty much live in emacs and terminal windows.  I do find the 
integration of iPython and matplotlib to be compelling, so that's my 
current environment of choice for anything involving graphics.  A common 
scenario for me is running the iPython kernel on some Ubuntu box in AWS, 
and a browser on my OSX desktop, with an ssh port tunnel nailed up to 
let them talk to each other.

The bottom line is, if you've got it narrowed down to Ununtu or OSX, you 
can't go wrong with either choice.  Use whichever you're more 
comfortable using.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67384

On Sunday, February 23, 2014 2:43:14 AM UTC-6, twiz wrote:

> I'm sure this is a common question but I can't seem to find a previous thread that addresses it.   If one one exists, please point me to it.

My personal preference for writing and testing python code is Gnu/Linux as a platform (free libre open easier to build from C sources etc). As an editor, VI of course.  Although, I can honestly say I've been using the latest GNU Emacs lately. It has a very nice python mode. I also use TextWrangler from time to time (can be extended with scripts and it has the same 'feel' as the IDLE editor (kind-of).

The main problem you will see with OSX (if you're not careful) is that IDLE will be unstable.  To be fair about it, its not IDLE's problem, per se.  Its about tcl/tk tkinter.  DO NOT use the built-in tcl that comes from Apple, nor the one that comes through the Apple store!  Actually go to the Active TCL site and download the version related to your system (yes there is a different one depending on 10.5 10.6 etc).

Py3.3.4 and the latest Active TCL are stable on OSX 10.6 or higher. I have been very pleased with IDLE on both Gnu/Linux and OSX ( I refuse to use Windows ever again, ever) and my latest experience has been fabulous, really.  My hat is off to the folks that have made IDLE the simple stable and powerful IDE that it is. I am being genuine about this.

Another reason for using Gnu/Linux (and/or OSX) is that generally they are faster.  Faster loading, and faster running.  Serious.  I have been hearing of (4) second import times for decimal, for instance. Its almost instantaneous on Gnu/Linux, or OSX.  Also, run times are considerably faster.  That has less to do with the Windows version of python, and more to do with the Windows version. YMMV

If you want to extend your python code with C (as many of us do) well OSX and/or Gnu/Linux are your best bets there too, and frankly Gnu/Linux is the better of the two (from personal experience). OSX 10.6 uses the GNU gcc compiler by default, but the Apple idiosyncratic approach to builds can be annoying. Although, its minimal really (hardly worth mentioning). If you want to build python from sources (as many of us do) my personal opinion is also that Gnu/Linux is the way to go there too. 

I agree with most of the rest of the posts here that personal preference is at play primarily. Your editor run environment is going to be more important to you than your platform. There is one main difference to that, and it has to do with what you're used to.  In IDLE on Gnu/Linux the menu options are on the top of the IDE.  In OSX they are on the OSX tool bar at top left (where they are for every other OSX app). OSX guys don't mind this, but Gnu/Linux guys hate it (sometimes).  Also, the menu items on Gnu/Linux can be 'torn' off (its a tcl/tk tkinter thing) and on OSX that does not work. Also the 'Options' menu item on OSX has nothing in it. The Options menu is in Preferences in the IDLE drop down on the OSX tool bar.  Other than those things, I have spent many cheerful hours in the OSX IDLE editor and have been happy as a clam.  Same goes for the Gnu/Linux IDLE editor. 

If you want to use terminals on OSX you'll want to install  Quartz  and run the terminal on the emulated X environment.  It works better for python IMHO.  The built-in terminal for OSX need serious configuring (which is possible) because its color is bad, and its tiny by default, with a crummy font. All of that can be changed, but it just works better to use XQuartz.

Enjoy

Cheers

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67388

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 9:32 AM, Mark H. Harris <harrismh777@gmail.com> wrote:
> Py3.3.4 and the latest Active TCL are stable on OSX 10.6 or higher. I have been very pleased with IDLE on both Gnu/Linux and OSX ( I refuse to use Windows ever again, ever) and my latest experience has been fabulous, really.  My hat is off to the folks that have made IDLE the simple stable and powerful IDE that it is. I am being genuine about this.
>
> Another reason for using Gnu/Linux (and/or OSX) is that generally they are faster.  Faster loading, and faster running.  Serious.  I have been hearing of (4) second import times for decimal, for instance. Its almost instantaneous on Gnu/Linux, or OSX.  Also, run times are considerably faster.  That has less to do with the Windows version of python, and more to do with the Windows version. YMMV
>

The point of this thread isn't really about Windows, so I'll try to
keep it brief, but there are a couple of things I should clarify. The
first one is about the 4+ second import time for decimal. I cited
that, recently, and comparing that with "almost instantaneous" on
Debian (which is what I experience) isn't entirely fair, because it's
more about cold cache versus warm cache. (When I shut down IDLE and
fire it up again, I get sub-second import time. Not as fast as the "so
quick as to be immeasurable" that my Debian box gave, but still
quicker than the 4ish second cold cache.)

Actually, I do find that my Linux boxes manage their disk caches far
better than my Windows boxes do. Not sure if that's Linux versus
Windows, or the ext3/4 versus NTFS file system drivers, or something
else, but a warm cache on any of my Linux boxes gives a *huge*
advantage, and my Windows boxes still show it a bit slower.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67389

In article <4e741358-ce12-40ac-97b8-3bbbf2d6ddca@googlegroups.com>,
 "Mark H. Harris" <harrismh777@gmail.com> wrote:
> [...]
> The main problem you will see with OSX (if you're not careful) is that IDLE 
> will be unstable.  To be fair about it, its not IDLE's problem, per se.  Its 
> about tcl/tk tkinter.  DO NOT use the built-in tcl that comes from Apple, nor 
> the one that comes through the Apple store!  Actually go to the Active TCL 
> site and download the version related to your system (yes there is a 
> different one depending on 10.5 10.6 etc).

The gory details are here:
http://www.python.org/download/mac/tcltk/

TL;DR You'll need to install newer versions of Python (like those 
download from python.org) that link with third-party builds of Tcl/Tk 
rather than use the Pythons and Tcl/Tk that Apple ships with OS X 10.6+.

> [...]
> If you want to use terminals on OSX you'll want to install  Quartz  and run 
> the terminal on the emulated X environment.  It works better for python IMHO. 
>  The built-in terminal for OSX need serious configuring (which is possible) 
> because its color is bad, and its tiny by default, with a crummy font. All of 
> that can be changed, but it just works better to use XQuartz.

That certainly is a matter of preference.  There are plenty of drawbacks 
to using X11-based apps on OS X.  I wouldn't advise new users to OS X to 
go that route unless they were really set on using X11 entirely and, in 
that case, why use OS X at all?  If you don't like Apple's built-in 
Terminal.app, another option is to use iTerm 2, an open source native 
alternative that has many more features.  

http://www.iterm2.com/

It's also available through MacPorts.

-- 
 Ned Deily,
 nad@acm.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67410

"Chris Angelico" <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:CAPTjJmrBU9K0aoJyCUmif1FCExtbsuq27pGxiRvyNd=yVn-D5g@mail.gmail.com...
>
> The point of this thread isn't really about Windows, so I'll try to
> keep it brief, but there are a couple of things I should clarify. The
> first one is about the 4+ second import time for decimal. I cited
> that, recently, and comparing that with "almost instantaneous" on
> Debian (which is what I experience) isn't entirely fair, because it's
> more about cold cache versus warm cache. (When I shut down IDLE and
> fire it up again, I get sub-second import time. Not as fast as the "so
> quick as to be immeasurable" that my Debian box gave, but still
> quicker than the 4ish second cold cache.)
>

Which version are you talking about?

I have an old, slow box running Windows Server 2003 and python 3.3.2.

I have just booted it up now, called up a command prompt, typed 'python' to 
start the interpreter, and typed 'import decimal'. The interpreter prompt 
re-appeared in the blink of an eye.

Are you talking about something else?

Frank Millman

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67411

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Frank Millman <frank@chagford.com> wrote:
> Which version are you talking about?
>
> I have an old, slow box running Windows Server 2003 and python 3.3.2.
>
> I have just booted it up now, called up a command prompt, typed 'python' to
> start the interpreter, and typed 'import decimal'. The interpreter prompt
> re-appeared in the blink of an eye.
>
> Are you talking about something else?

I did it in IDLE, which might have added a bit, but not hugely. It was
3.4.0, so the module in both cases is the C-accelerated version. My
suspicion is that you've used the decimal module already on that
system, so you had a warm cache. When I repeat the exercise, I get
sub-second load times (usually of the order of 100-200ms); the
difference between that and your "blink of an eye" would be to do with
exactness of measurement, CPU/HDD performance, etc, etc, etc.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#67413

"Chris Angelico" <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:CAPTjJmrmJjiGMfqui=PpJco7LjtqVpUjj=XNmTYbYQEmxG3fmw@mail.gmail.com...
> On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 4:51 PM, Frank Millman <frank@chagford.com> wrote:
>> Which version are you talking about?
>>
>> I have an old, slow box running Windows Server 2003 and python 3.3.2.
>>
>> I have just booted it up now, called up a command prompt, typed 'python'
>> to
>> start the interpreter, and typed 'import decimal'. The interpreter prompt
>> re-appeared in the blink of an eye.
>>
>> Are you talking about something else?
>
> I did it in IDLE, which might have added a bit, but not hugely. It was
> 3.4.0, so the module in both cases is the C-accelerated version. My
> suspicion is that you've used the decimal module already on that
> system, so you had a warm cache. When I repeat the exercise, I get
> sub-second load times (usually of the order of 100-200ms); the
> difference between that and your "blink of an eye" would be to do with
> exactness of measurement, CPU/HDD performance, etc, etc, etc.
>

I assume by 'warm cache' you mean that I had used the decimal module before 
and not switched the machine off before trying the above exercise.

In my case, the machine was switched off before I started. I switched it on 
and executed the above steps.

To be slightly more precise, instead of 'the blink of an eye', I estimate it 
was between 250-500 ms. If I close the interpreter and start it up again, it 
takes maybe 100-200ms.

Just to be sure, I switched the machine off and on again, and repeated the 
exercise. Starting the interpreter for the first time takes 1.5 - 2 seconds. 
Importing decimal for the first time takes less than 500ms.

Frank

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web