Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?
BartC
bc at freeuk.com
Thu Mar 10 07:19:30 EST 2016
On 10/03/2016 01:59, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> I think Bart is very old-school, and probably a bit behind the times when it
> comes to modern compiler and interpreter technologies.
That's true. I've reached a dead-end with what I can do with
interpreted, dynamically typed byte-code, but it stills holds its own
compared with other non-accelerated scripting languages, even PyPy
sometimes.
(Although other JIT projects I think are faster than PyPy, eg. LuaJIT.
Very compact too.)
(I could also go the JIT route, but it's very complicated and not much
fun! And once you start generating custom native code, then you're
competing with proper compilers.)
But that doesn't
> matter: the old timers knew a thing or two, and in some ways the old days
> were better:
>
> http://prog21.dadgum.com/116.html
>
>
> I fear that Bart still holds quite a few misapprehensions about Python. But
> he seems happy to discuss the language
I have an interest in C and in Python because those are probably the two
languages I'd be using now, if I hadn't been spoilt by having to create
my own versions in the 1980s.
I've watched Python's development with interest because there were some
parallels with the script language I was using for my applications (I
decided my language needed byte-arrays bolted on; Python also added
byte-arrays!)
Python however decided to be far more dynamic. (Making efficient
interpreters a bit harder to write.)
--
Bartc
More information about the Python-list
mailing list