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

[BartC]

On 11/03/2016 05:29, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 06:26 am, Mark Lawrence wrote:

>> No mention of speed anywhere, but then what does that silly old Tim
>> Peters know about anything?

> The truth is, most people don't -- most Python code uses very little of the
> dynamic features that get in the way of optimizing the interpreter, things
> like intentionally shadowing or monkey-patching built-ins, adding
> attributes to objects on the fly, or using exec and eval. In my dream
> language, I wish that there were a way to tell the compiler "this is code
> (function, class, module) is not dynamic, optimize it as much as you can".

The problem is the compiler has to have sight of the code for that to 
work. That means looking inside an imported module, which I think 
doesn't happen when running the byte-code compiler, but executing  the 
resulting byte-code.

Anyway, I've listed some of the stumbling blocks I think that Python has 
in making it bit faster: http://pastebin.com/WfUfK3bc

Solving all that won't magically make it a magnitude quicker, but 
noticeably brisker. And could open the way for further speed-ups. 
Unfortunately you can't these issues without radical changes to the 
language ...

> Or better still, for the compiler itself to recognise when code is static,
> and optimize it. Victor Stinner's FAT Python may be that compiler some day,
> and I for one can't wait.

... unless you take the complicated approach as this project seems to!

(Mine would be to design the language to be less dynamic in the first 
place.)

-- 
Bartc