[Python-Dev] PEP 575 (Unifying function/method classes) update

[Ivan Levkivskyi]

On 19 June 2018 at 13:02, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19 June 2018 at 16:12, INADA Naoki <songofacandy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 2:56 PM Jeroen Demeyer <J.Demeyer at ugent.be>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2018-06-18 16:55, INADA Naoki wrote:
> >> > Speeding up most python function and some bultin functions was very
> >> > significant.
> >> > But I doubt making some 3rd party call 20% faster can make real
> >> > applications significant faster.
> >>
> >> These two sentences are almost contradictory. I find it strange to claim
> >> that a given optimization was "very significant" in specific cases while
> >> saying that the same optimization won't matter in other cases.
> >
> >
> > It's not contradictory because there is basis:
> >
> >   In most real world Python application, number of calling Python
> methods or
> >   bulitin functions are much more than other calls.
> >
> > For example, optimization for bulitin `tp_init` or `tp_new` by FASTCALL
> was
> > rejected because it's implementation is complex and it's performance
> gain is
> > not significant enough on macro benchmarks.
> >
> > And I doubt number of 3rd party calls are much more than calling builtin
> > tp_init or tp_new.
>
> I don't think this assumption is correct, as scientific Python
> software spends a lot of time calling other components in the
> scientific Python stack, and bypassing the core language runtime
> entirely.
>
>
A recent Python survey by PSF/JetBrains shows that almost half of current
Python
users are using it for data science/ML/etc. For all these people most of
the time is spent
on calling C functions in extensions.

--
Ivan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20180619/94c4d470/attachment-0001.html>