3 ms·
Your last point is slightly misleading, you're comparing Python 3.6 (2016ish) with Python 2.7(2008), it better be faster
by kartD 9y ago
Your last point is slightly misleading, you're comparing Python 3.6 (2016ish) with Python 2.7(2008), it better be faster
- scrollaway 9y agoI just meant to include that as a real world example of the effects of upgrading from 2 to 3. But the blog post in question does date back to 2016 so I don't know how that's unfair :)
- orf 9y agoIt's actually comparing 2.7.12 (2016) with 3.6 (2016). Not that the release date has much to do with the benchmark, mind you...
- kartD 9y agoHardly matters since 2.7.xx are all maintenance releases and practically no features or performance improvements
- orf 9y agoWhich is exactly why it's ok and not unfair to compare the performance improvements over time of Python 3.6 versus Python 2.7?
- joshuamorton 9y agoThe point is that even at that time, Zed was advocating staying on py2 because py3 had no future, or wasn't turing complete, or whatever is complaint du jour was.