Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?

[Mark Lawrence]

On 10/03/2016 00:58, BartC wrote:
> On 09/03/2016 23:35, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 09/03/2016 23:14, BartC wrote:
>
>>> (The byte-code compiler for the current version is written in itself. It
>>> can compile itself (some 25Kloc) in about 1 second (that's running
>>> interpreted, dynamic byte-code on a not-very-fast PC).
>>
>> Please answer my question, will it be tested against real world
>> benchmarks or microbenchmarks?  The above paragraph, and several
>> following paragraphs, are completely irrelevant.
>
> You think a bloody great compiler is a microbenchmark?!

I have no interest in the speed of the compiler, I am interested in the 
run time speed of the applications that it produces which is what has 
been discussed thus far.

>
>>> A compiler is another good 'pure language' task because, apart from
>>> input and output at each end, all the computation is self-contained.)
>>
>> I've no idea what this is meant to mean.
>
> It means the task doesn't do any function calls to external libraries.

Meaning that in this dreadful place called the real world it's less than 
useless in many cases.  Why do you think there are the better part of 
50,000 entries on pypi alone, some pure Python, some C extensions, 
presumably some a combinaton of both?

>
> If you're benchmarking, that's usually what you want.
>
>>> I'm not much interested in Unicode at the minute. I'll pass.
>
>> Your final comment sums up perfectly your knowledge of computing in
>> 2016.
>
> You're utterly determined to belittle everything I do aren't you!

Yes I am, as you appear to know squat.

>
> But, yeah, I was writing international applications decades ago. I'm not
> working for anyone now and don't need to bother.

So your new language doesn't bother with unicode then?

>
>  From what I've seen, a lot of software can't get it right anyway.
>

Are you referring to PEP393 having taken notice of the RUE?

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence