3 ms·
unfortunately the numbers in the pep - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/#performance-retrospective http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/#performance-r
by andrewcooke 17y ago
unfortunately the numbers in the pep - http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/#performance-retrospective http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3146/#performance-retrosp... - aren't as exciting as you might hope: Our initial goal for Unladen Swallow was a 5x performance improvement over CPython 2.6. We did not hit that, nor to put it bluntly, even come close.
- buster 17y agoyeah, i thought the same. But i think the work that was done so far built the base for further improvements. They were "distracted" by building other features into llvm, profiling tools and such. I think, even if the speed stays the same now, there will be good opportunities to real speed ups in the future.
- andrewcooke 17y agoi hope so (although i find the whole thing a bit odd - why is it being merged now, if the work was mainly in fixing llvm; why not spend another year and hit the numbers? pypy has been steadily improving, and while people have said there's room for both, this smells a bit political...)
- jonknee 17y ago"This PEP proposes to integrate Unladen Swallow into CPython's development tree in a separate py3k-jit branch, targeted for eventual merger with the main py3k branch. While Unladen Swallow is by no means finished or perfect, we feel that Unladen Swallow has reached sufficient maturity to warrant incorporation into CPython's roadmap. We have sought to create a stable platform that the wider CPython development team can build upon, a platform that will yield increasing performance for years to come." It's not going right in.
- wingo 17y agoIt's a remarkable study in the power of marketing: people hear "unladen swallow, llvm" and they think "fast"; but the reality is not that simple.