Python future performance and speed

[Neuruss]

Re: Python future performance and speed

> They already are (Lisp, etc.)

That's a surprise! I didn't know about Lisp, so I did a quick search
in Google and I found this quote from CMUCL website:

"a sophisticated native-code compiler which is capable of powerful
type inferences, and generates code competitive in speed with C
compilers."

Has anyone tried to learn from this experience? Could this technology
be used with Python?

Regarding you Paul, I also found this:

"There's another guy I'd also like to invite, a Lisp expert, if that's
ok with you. He's been interested in writing a Python compiler for a
while. I'll ask him if he wants to join, but he might not."

What happened?

[Kirk Job-Sluder]

Re: Python future performance and speed

On 2004-08-22, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Roy Smith wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level
>> (aka scripting) languages in general.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Far more likely, it seems to me, is that the primary limitation
> for mainstream acceptance of scripting languages(*) in general
> is ignorance.[/color]

I think there are a few other reasons as well. I think that the general
python policy of making things clear and obvious is incompatible with
software business models that consider compilation and distribution of
executables as a way to hide trade secrets.

Another problem with interpreted languages is that the interpreter and
libraries for might be moving targets. I've not specifically had any
problems with python, but I have had problems with an update to R
killing functionality for a library I was using. I've also have had
problems with some Java applications depending on which JRE I might be
running on a system.

[Francesco Bochicchio]

VHHL :( was Re: Python future performance and speed)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:20:42 -0400, Peter Hansen wrote:
[color=blue]
> * I limit this to scripting languages since it's quite certain
> that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
> fully. The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
> widely considered to be high level languages. Has someone been
> raising the bar while I wasn't looking?[/color]

I heard sometime Python referred as a 'Very High Level Language', that is
a notch on the top of Java, and more than that on top of C++. I concur
with this definition, since Python is for me closer to the developers
mind (and thus more distant from the machine) than any other language I
use (including Java, C++, C and ADA).
So, the bar has been raised, in a way:-).
And VHLLs will become more and more used as computer power grows and
becomes cheaper than developer time (it is already so in several
application areas).

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Python future performance and speed

Roy Smith wrote:
[color=blue]
> Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level
> (aka scripting) languages in general. I can think of no reason why so
> much software is still written in languages like C++ other than
> performance (or at least, the perception of it).[/color]

I'm glad you added that parenthetical comment, because I'm nearly
certain that it is *not* actual experience with Python, and
disappointment with its speed, that is the cause.

Far more likely, it seems to me, is that the primary limitation
for mainstream acceptance of scripting languages(*) in general
is ignorance. More specifically, a lack of knowledge of their
capabilities or ability to handle the job. I'm quite sure there
are far more people out there doing C++ or Java work who have
never *heard* of Python, than people who have heard of it and
have the perception it is too slow for their work, though
appropriate in other ways.

-Peter

* I limit this to scripting languages since it's quite certain
that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
fully. The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
widely considered to be high level languages. Has someone been
raising the bar while I wasn't looking?

[Peter Hansen]

Re: Python future performance and speed

Neuruss wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>>What makes you think speed is Python's primary limitation for mainstream
>>acceptance?[/color]
>
> Why would someone reject to use a language that is clean, very well
> designed, intuitive, expresive, flexible and a pleasure to use?
> Perhaps the fact that i is 100 times slower than c...[/color]

Statements like that serve only to demonstrate the narrowness of
thought of the writer.

In some cases, often contrived examples or with poorly written code,
Python can be about 100 times slower than C.

Much more often it lies somewhere between 10 and 30 times slower.

In a surprising number of cases, it is faster than 10 times
slower and in a few cases it can even achieve rough parity.

And if we have to rehash the old arguments again for those who haven't
taken the time to search the archives, we can point out once
more things like how a Python program will be completed much
sooner than the C program, resulting in lots of extra time to
run the program (and many programs are not run very often).

We can also point to the fact that most performance issues are
more heavily affected by poor algorithms than by anything else,
and the Python programmer has both the tools and the time to
improve the algorithms whereas the C programmer will not...

-Peter

[Roy Smith]

Re: Python future performance and speed

In article <wt6dncL0d4DMJL XcRVn-uQ@powergate.ca >,
Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Roy Smith wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level
> > (aka scripting) languages in general. I can think of no reason why so
> > much software is still written in languages like C++ other than
> > performance (or at least, the perception of it).[/color]
>
> I'm glad you added that parenthetical comment, because I'm nearly
> certain that it is *not* actual experience with Python, and
> disappointment with its speed, that is the cause.[/color]

I suspect that most decisions to use or not use any given technology are
made long before any objective tests have been run. Perception is often
more important than measurement.
[color=blue]
> it's quite certain
> that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
> fully. The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
> widely considered to be high level languages. Has someone been
> raising the bar while I wasn't looking?[/color]

Yes, I think they have. I don't think a language that deals with memory
management at the level that C and C++ do (explicit allocation and
deallocation, pointers, etc) can be called high-level today. Even in
the 1970's, when C first appeared, it wasn't considered particularly
high level.

There's a lot that I don't like about Java too, but at least it doesn't
expose raw memory to the application logic, so I'll go along with Java
being high level. At least for now. It's a moving target, and if you
ask me again in 5 years, I'll probably give you a different answer.

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Python future performance and speed

>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Smith <roy@panix.co m> writes:

Roy> (aka scripting) languages in general. I can think of no
Roy> reason why so much software is still written in languages
Roy> like C++ other than performance (or at least, the perception
Roy> of it).

Inertia, ignorance.

No need for virtual machine.

Real time requirements and predictabilify (e.g. fine grained control
of memory management).

Large amount of legacy code.

But most often it's still inertia and ignorance. Never underestimate
the power of incompetence ;-).

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Kirk Job-Sluder]

Re: Python future performance and speed

On 2004-08-22, Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> Roy Smith wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level
>> (aka scripting) languages in general.[/color][/color]
[color=blue]
> Far more likely, it seems to me, is that the primary limitation
> for mainstream acceptance of scripting languages(*) in general
> is ignorance.[/color]

I think there are a few other reasons as well. I think that the general
python policy of making things clear and obvious is incompatible with
software business models that consider compilation and distribution of
executables as a way to hide trade secrets.

Another problem with interpreted languages is that the interpreter and
libraries for might be moving targets. I've not specifically had any
problems with python, but I have had problems with an update to R
killing functionality for a library I was using. I've also have had
problems with some Java applications depending on which JRE I might be
running on a system.

[Ville Vainio]

Re: VHHL :( was Re: Python future performance and speed)

>>>>> "Francesco" == Francesco Bochicchio <bockman@virgil io.it> writes:

Francesco> And VHLLs will become more and more used as computer
Francesco> power grows and becomes cheaper than developer time (it
Francesco> is already so in several application areas).

Don't forget that developer time is becoming cheaper as well. The
issue will be increasingly about code quality and the ability to
deliver on time / at all.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Francesco Bochicchio]

VHHL :( was Re: Python future performance and speed)

On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 11:20:42 -0400, Peter Hansen wrote:
[color=blue]
> * I limit this to scripting languages since it's quite certain
> that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
> fully. The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
> widely considered to be high level languages. Has someone been
> raising the bar while I wasn't looking?[/color]

I heard sometime Python referred as a 'Very High Level Language', that is
a notch on the top of Java, and more than that on top of C++. I concur
with this definition, since Python is for me closer to the developers
mind (and thus more distant from the machine) than any other language I
use (including Java, C++, C and ADA).
So, the bar has been raised, in a way:-).
And VHLLs will become more and more used as computer power grows and
becomes cheaper than developer time (it is already so in several
application areas).

[Roy Smith]

Re: Python future performance and speed

In article <wt6dncL0d4DMJL XcRVn-uQ@powergate.ca >,
Peter Hansen <peter@engcorp. com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Roy Smith wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Speed is the primary limitation for mainstream acceptance of high level
> > (aka scripting) languages in general. I can think of no reason why so
> > much software is still written in languages like C++ other than
> > performance (or at least, the perception of it).[/color]
>
> I'm glad you added that parenthetical comment, because I'm nearly
> certain that it is *not* actual experience with Python, and
> disappointment with its speed, that is the cause.[/color]

I suspect that most decisions to use or not use any given technology are
made long before any objective tests have been run. Perception is often
more important than measurement.
[color=blue]
> it's quite certain
> that the mainstream *has* accepted high level languages quite
> fully. The last time I checked, Java and C++ (even C) were
> widely considered to be high level languages. Has someone been
> raising the bar while I wasn't looking?[/color]

Yes, I think they have. I don't think a language that deals with memory
management at the level that C and C++ do (explicit allocation and
deallocation, pointers, etc) can be called high-level today. Even in
the 1970's, when C first appeared, it wasn't considered particularly
high level.

There's a lot that I don't like about Java too, but at least it doesn't
expose raw memory to the application logic, so I'll go along with Java
being high level. At least for now. It's a moving target, and if you
ask me again in 5 years, I'll probably give you a different answer.

[Ville Vainio]

Re: Python future performance and speed

>>>>> "Roy" == Roy Smith <roy@panix.co m> writes:

Roy> (aka scripting) languages in general. I can think of no
Roy> reason why so much software is still written in languages
Roy> like C++ other than performance (or at least, the perception
Roy> of it).

Inertia, ignorance.

No need for virtual machine.

Real time requirements and predictabilify (e.g. fine grained control
of memory management).

Large amount of legacy code.

But most often it's still inertia and ignorance. Never underestimate
the power of incompetence ;-).

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Dieter Maurer]

Re: Python future performance and speed

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.i nvalid> writes on 21 Aug 2004 20:59:35 -0700:[color=blue]
> ...
> Well, whenever I want to write a mainstream application and think of
> using Python, my first reaction is that Python is too slow...[/color]

Maybe, you should drain your reactions :-)

About 18 months ago, I proposed to implement an SGML/XML
based content management system in Zope/Python
because the company went bankrupt that
had offered a similar C++ based system we were relying upon.

Many of my colleagues objected because they thought Python
were too slow.

The Zope/Python CMS is now almost ready -- it is much faster
than its C++ counterpart. Not because Python is faster than C++
but because a Python application is far easier to tailor
and to tweak for efficiency than a C++ one (and because
we avoided known design flaws in the C++ system).

Dieter

[Ville Vainio]

Re: VHHL :( was Re: Python future performance and speed)

>>>>> "Francesco" == Francesco Bochicchio <bockman@virgil io.it> writes:

Francesco> And VHLLs will become more and more used as computer
Francesco> power grows and becomes cheaper than developer time (it
Francesco> is already so in several application areas).

Don't forget that developer time is becoming cheaper as well. The
issue will be increasingly about code quality and the ability to
deliver on time / at all.

--
Ville Vainio http://tinyurl.com/2prnb

[Grant Edwards]

Re: Python future performance and speed

On 2004-08-22, Paul Rubin <> wrote:[color=blue]
> aahz@pythoncraf t.com (Aahz) writes:[color=green][color=darkred]
>> >It seems there are quite a few projects aimed to improve Python's
>> >speed and, therefore, eliminate its main limitation for mainstream
>> >acceptance.[/color]
>>
>> What makes you think speed is Python's primary limitation for mainstream
>> acceptance?[/color]
>
> Well, whenever I want to write a mainstream application and think of
> using Python, my first reaction is that Python is too slow...[/color]

And I presume you're pleasantly surprised when you run your program and find
out it's not too slow?

--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Did you move a lot
at of KOREAN STEAK KNIVES this
visi.com trip, Dingy?