5 ms·

I wouldn't call it speedy: met% python -m timeit "sum(x**2 for x in xrange(10000))" 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.14 msec per loop met% ./bin/pypy -m timeit "

I wouldn't call it speedy: met% python -m timeit "sum(x**2 for x in xrange(10000))" 1000 loops, best of 3: 1.14 msec per loop met% ./bin/pypy -m timeit "sum(x**2 for x in xrange(10000))" 100 loops, best of 3: 5.18 msec per loop Almost a five-fold slowdown, in my hands.

tetha 17y ago
Of course, the slowness of a single artifical <50-character program completely demonstrates the slowness of a jit-compiler for a dynamic language, and clearly they should stop devleoping right now.
- Estragon 17y ago
  Straw man. I was responding to the claim in the parent that it's speedy. Don't know what you mean by artificial; it was the first test I tried.
pgbovine 17y ago
is ./bin/pypy the version of pypy that's been compiled or simply the pure-python interpreted version (easy check is to view it in an editor)? if you're running the interpreted version, then that makes sense that it's 5x slower.
- enki 17y ago
  in either case he's not accounting for the time the JIT (if he were actually using it) would need to warm up.
- Estragon 17y ago
  met% file ./bin/pypy ./bin/pypy: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV), dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.15, stripped