Towards faster Python implementations - theory

[sturlamolden]

On May 10, 4:02 pm, Tim Golden <m... at timgolden.me.uk> wrote:

> But the relevant bit of your last paragraph is at the start:
> "We should...".

Sorry, bad choice of words.

> see it faster. That's great. But unless people
> puts their money where their mouths are, I don't

I know, I know. But that doesn't stop me from envying what the Lisp
community has achieved.

Python still sucks if we are using it for scientific simulations,
testing CPU-bound algorithms, etc. Sure it is only 150-200 times
slower than C for these tasks, but that can amount to the difference
between one day and half a year of CPU time. But as strange as it may
seem, it can still be advantageous to use Python. E.g. it may be less
expensive to run the simulation in parallel on 200 CPUs than writing
the code in C instead of Python.