371–380 of 579 posts
I don't know how realistic only using a benchmark that only uses tight loops and integer operations. Something with hashmaps and strings more realistically represents everyday cpu code in python; most python users offload numeric code to external calls.
There is no "realistic" benchmark, all benchmarks are designed to measure in a specific way. I explain what my goals were in the article, in case you are curious and want to read it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You hope it doesn't ? > [Donald Knuth] firmly believes that having an unchanged system that will produce the same output now and in the future is more important than introducing new features This is such a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is considered obsolete after like 3 years. Our industry has a disease, an insatiable hunger for newness over completeness or correctness . There's no reason we can't…
This philosophy may have its place in some communities, but Python is definitely not one of them. Even C/C++ introduces breaking changes from time to time (after decades of deprecation though). There’s no practical reason why Python should commit to a 100+ year code stability, as all that comes at a price. Having said that, Python 2 -> 3 is a textbook example of how not to do these things.
C in contrast generally versions the breaking changes in the standard, and you can keep targeting an older standard on a newer compiler if you need to, and many do
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.nrn.com/casual-dining/cracker-barrel-s-logo-cont... https://www.wsj.com/articles/bot-networks-are-helping-drag-c...
Did anyone short Cracker Barrel stock? If not, I have a hard time seeing why bots would have any interest in investing the time/money. There also didn't seem to be any political clout being gained by the complaints. More real-world is that I know tons of friends/relatives in the South and I don't know of even ONE that liked the redesign.
More than 300 comments here and still no convincing answer. Why the community wastes time on trying to make CPython faster when there is pypy which is already much faster? I understand pypy lacks libraries and feature parity with up to date CPython. But… can’t everyone refocus the efforts and just move to pypy to add all the missing bits and then just continue with pypy as the “official python”? Are there any serious…
> Are there any serious technical reasons not to do it? Yes. First is startup time. REPL cycle being fast is a big advantage for development. From a business perspective, dev time is more expensive then compute time by orders of magnitude. Every time you make a change, you have to recompile the program. Meanwhile with regular python, you can literally develop during execution. Second is compatibility. Numpy and pytor…
If you for some reason do this, please keep the python around so I can at least look at whatever the human was aiming at. It's probably also wrong as they picked this workflow, but there's a chance it has something useful
Every time I hear news about Python language itself, it sadden me that, in 2025, PyPy is still a separate distinct track from mainline Python. That said, I wonder if GIL-less Python will one day enable GIL-less C FFI? That would be a big win that Python needs.
I don't understand why C FFI is that popular. The amount of time it takes spent to write all the cffi stuff is the same amount it takes to write an executable in C and call it from python. The only time cffi is useful is if you want to have that code be dynamic, which is a very niche use case.
Please don’t make benchmarks with timing inside the loop creating a sum. Just time the loop and divide by the number. Stuff happens getting the time and the jitter can mess with results.
The real world benchmark is measuring it from invocation, both for cold launches and 'hot' (data cached from the last run). Interestingly I might have only ever used the time (shell) builtin command. GNU's time measuring command prints a bunch of other performance stats as well.
I don't know how realistic only using a benchmark that only uses tight loops and integer operations. Something with hashmaps and strings more realistically represents everyday cpu code in python; most python users offload numeric code to external calls.
If your actual load is 1% python and 99% offloaded, the effect of a faster python might not mater a lot to you, but to measure python you kinda have to look at python
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You hope it doesn't ? > [Donald Knuth] firmly believes that having an unchanged system that will produce the same output now and in the future is more important than introducing new features This is such a breath of fresh air in a world where everything is considered obsolete after like 3 years. Our industry has a disease, an insatiable hunger for newness over completeness or correctness . There's no reason we can't…
To be fair, if math did have version numbers, we could abandon a lot of hideous notational cruft / symbol overloading, and use tau instead of pi. Math notation is arguably considerably worse than perl -- can you imagine if perl practically required a convention of single-letter variable names everywhere? What modern language designer would make it so placing two variable names right next to each other denotes multipl…
Mathematical notation evolved to its modern state over centuries. It's optimized heavily for its purpose. Version numbers? You're being facetious, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any source for that?
https://www.nrn.com/casual-dining/cracker-barrel-s-logo-cont... https://www.wsj.com/articles/bot-networks-are-helping-drag-c...
It's more interesting to me how, without fail, a comment always pops in at the mention of Cracker Barrel to say "those were bots, fellow human."