Maybe, stop using Python for anything but better shell scripts? Pretty sure it was invented to be a bash replacement.
The computers are fast, but you don't know it
251–260 of 819 posts
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I ask if you're using the M1 based MacBook or the Intel one? I'm asking because I've been thinking of getting a MacBook Air in the future with the intent to use it for writing.
I have an M1 Air right I'm typing on right now and have not had any sluggishness concerns besides when switching between Spaces. Even that is more of a visual stutter instead of actually lagging to the point the animation takes longer than usual. This is the first thin & light computer I've owned that I'm 100% happy with its performance.
Switching between spaces on this M1 takes multiple seconds. It's almost unbearable.
My 8-core 64GB Windows machine fares no better.
Switching between OLVWM desktops on my 200MHz Pentium Pro twenty years ago was instantaneous.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is performance inversely proportional to dev experience? because what you wrote could be said about using C++ in the context of dev experience 10 compilers, IDEs, debuggers, package managers and at the end of the day LLVM compiles 30min and uses tens of GBs of RAM on average hardware I don't believe that this is the best we can get.
Huh? "10 compilers, IDEs, debuggers, package managers" what are you talking about? (Virtually) No one uses ten different tools to build one application. I don't even know of any C++-specific package managers, although I do know of language-specific package managers for... oh, right, most scripting languages. And an IDE includes a compiler and a debugger, that's what makes it an IDE instead of a text editor. "and at t…
>I don't even know of any C++-specific package managers
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#254Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you hold up a sign with, say, a multiplication, a CPU will produce the result before light reaches a person a few metres away. The latency on multiplication (register input to register output) is 5-clock ticks, and many computers are 4GHz or 5GHz these days. 5-clock cycles at 5GHz is 1ns, which is 30-centimeters of light travel. If we include L1 cache read and L1 cache write, IIRC its 4 clock cycles for read + 4…
> The latency on multiplication (register input to register output) is 5-clock ticks 3 https://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
Those insrtruction latencies are in addition to the pipeline created latency. (They are actually the number of cycles added to the dependency chain specifically). The mult port has a small pipeline itself of 3 stages (that why 3 cycles latency). Intel has a 5 stage pipeline so the minimum latency is going to be 8 for just those two things.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#255Earlier quoted context omitted.
I mean, was it necessary? Your original Python expression was pretty obfuscated for such a simple calculation.
Are you actually suggesting I didn't realize I could've written x = [25, 37, 49], or what? Surely the point of the example wasn't "find the optimal way to calculate that particular list of numbers"?
No, I'm suggesting that your original example was a great example of obfuscated Python. Even supposing that you wanted to alter the total number of values generated and the number of initial values to skip, you're doing unnecessary work and made it more convoluted than necessary:
def some_example(to_skip=2, total_count=3):
return [n * 12 + 1 for n in range(to_skip, to_skip+total_count)]
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ran across an animation once that showed graphically the time it takes light to travel between the planets and the sun. It's weird, but light doesn't seem that fast anymore.
The speed of light has really not kept pace with Moore's Law. Engineers have focused overly much on clock speed and transistor density and completely ignored C, and it's really beginning to show.
Another consequence of our society’s reduced investment in fundamental physics - instead we go ether.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#257Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is performance inversely proportional to dev experience? because what you wrote could be said about using C++ in the context of dev experience 10 compilers, IDEs, debuggers, package managers and at the end of the day LLVM compiles 30min and uses tens of GBs of RAM on average hardware I don't believe that this is the best we can get.
TCC is a fast compiler. So fast, that at one time, one could use it to boot Linux from source code! But there's a downside: the code is produces is slow. There's no optimization done. None. So the trade off seems to be: compile fast but slow program, or compile slow but fast program.
The trade-off is more of a gradient: e.g. PGO allows an instrumented binary to collect runtime statistics and then use those to optimize hot paths for future build cycles.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#258TLDR: How to optimize Python function? Use C++.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#259Yup. We have gotten into the habit of leaving a lot of potential performance on the floor in the interest of productivity/accessibility. What always amazes me is when I have to work with a person who only speaks Python or only speaks JS and is completely unaware of the actual performance potential of a system. I think a lot of people just accept the performance they get as normal even if they are doing things that ta…
It's interesting to me that two of the top three comments right now are talking about gaining performance benefits by switching from Python to C when the actual article in the link claims he gained a speedup by pulling things out of pandas, which is written in C, and using normal Python list operations.
I would like to see all of the actual code he omitted, because I am skeptical how that would happen. It's been a while since I've used pandas for anything, but it should be pretty fast. The only thing I can think is he was maybe trying to run an apply on a column where the function was something doing Python string processing, or possibly the groupby is on something that isn't a categorical variable and needs to be converted on the fly.
Re: The computers are fast, but you don't know it
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have an M1 Air right I'm typing on right now and have not had any sluggishness concerns besides when switching between Spaces. Even that is more of a visual stutter instead of actually lagging to the point the animation takes longer than usual. This is the first thin & light computer I've owned that I'm 100% happy with its performance.
Switching between spaces on this M1 takes multiple seconds. It's almost unbearable. My 8-core 64GB Windows machine fares no better. Switching between OLVWM desktops on my 200MHz Pentium Pro twenty years ago was instantaneous.
Any idea what it’s doing during those several seconds?