3 ms·

> Python — which is typically orders of magnitude slower than languages like C Not to nit-pick...this has been characterized by a team who tested and compared

> Python — which is typically orders of magnitude slower than languages like C Not to nit-pick...this has been characterized by a team who tested and compared a large set of languages against a wide range of application code. The number is, if I remember correctly, about 78x slower. I don't think "orders" of magnitude is entirely fair. Yes, Python is slow. I have made the mistake of trying to use it for time-critical embedded applications. Never again. Aside from this admittedly pedantic observation, the first thing that crossed my mind with regards to this tool --which sounds fantastic-- is that you would have to trust the correctness and reliability of your code to this translation layer. Not sure how to think about this other than to keep a mental note of it if using this tool.

rerx 4y ago
78x is roughly two orders of magnitude in typical physics parlance. If you take a more CSy stance and count powers of two, it would be six to seven orders of magnitude. Sounds entirely fair to me.
- robomartin 4y ago
  In the article they say most speed-ups are in the 5x to 10x range. The paper shows this to be true, particularly when compared to PyPy. In other words, the acceleration isn't measured against raw C implementations (where the 78x factor I quoted would be relevant). It is measured against Python or PyPy. How much faster does Codon make your Python code. The answer seems to be somewhere around the 5x to 10x range. In that context, and in the context of actual applications rather than hand-picked tests (how much can we optimize a loop), "orders of magnitude" seems to be an exaggeration. BTW, MIT does this kind of thing all the time with their press releases. They have a brand to support with outlandish claims about everything that comes out of there. Those with frequent exposure to this kind of press release are wise to this. I've seen it for decades. It's marketing. For me, when someone says "orders of magnitude" it means "massive". I tend to say "10 times faster", "50 times faster" even "100 times faster". I probably start using "orders of magnitude" faster at 1000x or when I am trying to explicitly make an impression on a mathematically-challenged audience. "Orders of magnitude" sounds great to that crowd. I have never, in 40 years in CS/Engineering, heard anyone use powers-of-two when they say "orders of magnitude". Doing so would open you to serious misinterpretation. Engineers might say something like "a factor of 2 to the n" or something like that.

rerx 4y ago

78x is roughly two orders of magnitude in typical physics parlance. If you take a more CSy stance and count powers of two, it would be six to seven orders of magnitude. Sounds entirely fair to me.

robomartin 4y ago
In the article they say most speed-ups are in the 5x to 10x range. The paper shows this to be true, particularly when compared to PyPy. In other words, the acceleration isn't measured against raw C implementations (where the 78x factor I quoted would be relevant). It is measured against Python or PyPy. How much faster does Codon make your Python code. The answer seems to be somewhere around the 5x to 10x range. In that context, and in the context of actual applications rather than hand-picked tests (how much can we optimize a loop), "orders of magnitude" seems to be an exaggeration. BTW, MIT does this kind of thing all the time with their press releases. They have a brand to support with outlandish claims about everything that comes out of there. Those with frequent exposure to this kind of press release are wise to this. I've seen it for decades. It's marketing. For me, when someone says "orders of magnitude" it means "massive". I tend to say "10 times faster", "50 times faster" even "100 times faster". I probably start using "orders of magnitude" faster at 1000x or when I am trying to explicitly make an impression on a mathematically-challenged audience. "Orders of magnitude" sounds great to that crowd. I have never, in 40 years in CS/Engineering, heard anyone use powers-of-two when they say "orders of magnitude". Doing so would open you to serious misinterpretation. Engineers might say something like "a factor of 2 to the n" or something like that.