If it's 25% faster then the point versions should be (rounded) 3.88.
Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
11–20 of 460 posts
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#12These speedups are awesome, but of course one wonders why they haven't been a low-hanging fruit over the past 25 years. Having read about some of the changes [1], it seems like the python core committers preferred clean over fast implementations and have deviated from this mantra with 3.11. Now let's get a sane concurrency story (no multiprocessing / queue / pickle hacks) and suddenly it's a completely different lang…
Python has actually had concurrency since about 2019: https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio.html . Having used it a few times, it seems fairly sane, but tbf my experience with concurrency in other languages is fairly limited. edit: ray https://github.com/ray-project/ray is also pretty easy to use and powerful for actual parallelism
I have used asyncio in anger quite a bit, and have to say that it seems elegant at first and works very well for some use cases.
But when you try to do things that aren't a map-reduce or Pool.map() pattern, it suddenly becomes pretty warty. E.g. scheduling work out to a processpool executor is ugly under the hood and IMO ugly syntactically as well.
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#13These speedups are awesome, but of course one wonders why they haven't been a low-hanging fruit over the past 25 years. Having read about some of the changes [1], it seems like the python core committers preferred clean over fast implementations and have deviated from this mantra with 3.11. Now let's get a sane concurrency story (no multiprocessing / queue / pickle hacks) and suddenly it's a completely different lang…
Python has actually had concurrency since about 2019: https://docs.python.org/3/library/asyncio.html . Having used it a few times, it seems fairly sane, but tbf my experience with concurrency in other languages is fairly limited. edit: ray https://github.com/ray-project/ray is also pretty easy to use and powerful for actual parallelism
[deleted]
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#14I wish there was something like llvm for scripting languages. Imagine if python, php, javascript, dart or ruby would not interpret the code themself, but compile to an interpretable common language, where you could just plug in the fastest interpreter there is for the job.
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#15These speedups are awesome, but of course one wonders why they haven't been a low-hanging fruit over the past 25 years. Having read about some of the changes [1], it seems like the python core committers preferred clean over fast implementations and have deviated from this mantra with 3.11. Now let's get a sane concurrency story (no multiprocessing / queue / pickle hacks) and suddenly it's a completely different lang…
I don't wonder. For me it seems pretty clear. I believe the reason is that python does not need any low-hanging fruits to have people use it, which is why they're a priority for so many other projects out there. Low-hanging fruits attract people who can't reach higher than that. When talking about low-hanging fruits, it's important to consider who they're for. The intended target audience. It's important to ask ones…
I see your point, but it directly conflicts with the effort many people put into producing extremely fast libraries for specific purposes, such as web frameworks (benchmarked extensively), ORMs and things like json and date parsing, as seen in the excellent ciso8601 [1] for example.
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#16Cool improvement but changes very little when Python is x100 times slower than other GC languages.
This is probably the wrong comparison to make: Python is two orders of magnitude slower than compiled GC languages, but it's in the same order of magnitude as most other interpreted GC languages.
(It actually changes a whole lot, because there's a whole lot of code already out there written in Python. 25% faster is still 25% faster, even if the code would have been 100x faster to begin with in another language.)
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#17These speedups are awesome, but of course one wonders why they haven't been a low-hanging fruit over the past 25 years. Having read about some of the changes [1], it seems like the python core committers preferred clean over fast implementations and have deviated from this mantra with 3.11. Now let's get a sane concurrency story (no multiprocessing / queue / pickle hacks) and suddenly it's a completely different lang…
Answer is very simple. Amount of people who got paid to make python fast was rounded to 0.
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#18These speedups are awesome, but of course one wonders why they haven't been a low-hanging fruit over the past 25 years. Having read about some of the changes [1], it seems like the python core committers preferred clean over fast implementations and have deviated from this mantra with 3.11. Now let's get a sane concurrency story (no multiprocessing / queue / pickle hacks) and suddenly it's a completely different lang…
So we have:
* Statically allocated ("frozen") core modules for fast imports
* Avoid memory allocation for frames / faster frame creation
* Inlined python functions are called in pure python without needing to jump through C
* Optimizations that take advantage of speculative typing (Reminds me of Javascript JIT compilers -- though according to the FAQ Python isn't JIT yet)
* Smaller memory usage for frames, objects, and exceptions
Dang that certainly does sound like low hanging fruit. There's probably a lot more opportunities left if they want Python to go even faster.
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#19Did anyone try running this benchmark with other python implementations? (Pypy etc)
Too many things with Pypy (and other supposedly faster implementations) don't work, so it's a no-go for a lot of projects to begin with.
In the last 10 years, I looked into pypy I think three or four times to speed things up, it didn't work even once. (I don't remember exactly what it was that didn't play nice... but I'm thinking it must have been pillow|numpy|scipy|opencv|plotting libraries).
Re: Python 3.11 vs 3.10 performance
#20I wish there was something like llvm for scripting languages. Imagine if python, php, javascript, dart or ruby would not interpret the code themself, but compile to an interpretable common language, where you could just plug in the fastest interpreter there is for the job.
JVM and GraalVM?