Python is far from a top performer according to benchmark test...

[Samuel Walters]

|Thus Spake Krzysztof Stachlewski On the now historical date of Fri, 09
Jan 2004 22:13:58 +0100|

> "Carl" <phleum_nospam at chello.se> wrote in message
> news:ryELb.238$tK2.228 at amstwist00...
> 
>> I have been experimenting with numerical algorithms in Python with a
>> heavy use of the Numeric module. My experience is that Python is quite
>> fast in comparison with (and sometimes as fast as) traditional languages
>> such as C or C++.
> 
> With "heavy use of Numeric module" you were calling functions written in
> C. So how can you say that Python is fast, when C code is doing all the
> work.

Because python works best as a glue layer coordinating outside libraries
and functionality.  I think the true strength of python comes from a
one-two punch of "Fast and pretty implementation with easy interface to
lower level tools."  When python is not the right tool, we code our
solution with the right tool and then use python to glue all the right
tools together.  For numerical processing, C is the right tool, but python
is not.  Therefore, noone tried to use the wrong tool, they just used the
right tool and gave it python bindings so that python could act as a
coordinator.

I read the benchmark and I think it doesn't measure python in it's target
area.  That's like taking a world-class marathon runner and wondering why
he doesn't compete well in a figure-skating event.

Sam Walters.


-- 
Never forget the halloween documents.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
""" Where will Microsoft try to drag you today?
    Do you really want to go there?"""