4 ms·

Based on the screen recording demo it looks unexpectedly slow. What's the bottleneck?

• BlueUmarell 3y ago
  The "Python", the "Actually" and the "Portable" parts.
  • Retr0id 3y ago
    I'm aware of both Python and Cosmopolitan implementation details and neither of these things explain a multi-second page load.
• bluetomcat 3y ago
  The interpreter is linked to a cross-platform libc-like library, and compiled to a funky executable format, supporting multiple OS targets simultaneously. The initialisation and startup are probably computationally-intensive.
  • Retr0id 3y ago
    We can see the initial startup speed from the time it takes the command in the terminal to print something, which isn't so bad (looks like under a second). Maybe Flask is forking on each request, which I could imagine being slow, but not slower than the initial process startup.
    • jart 3y ago
      ahgamut is a college student. He doesn't have $15,000 workstations like us.
• jart 3y ago
  Software linked with Cosmopolitan Libc usually goes 2x faster than Musl. - https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ https://justine.lol/cosmo3/ - https://twitter.com/JustineTunney/status/1726141024597324189/photo/1 https://twitter.com/JustineTunney/status/1726141024597324189... What exactly looked slow to you?
  • Retr0id 3y ago
    In the screen recorded demo gif in the article, it takes several seconds for the "/python" and "/cosmopolitan" requests to load (although the index page seemed to load pretty quick).
    • jart 3y ago
      It's probably due to Chrome penalizing the connection for not being HTTPS
• ahgamut 3y ago
  My 4-core computer's probably building Cosmopolitan Libc in the background + the Python binary is 2.7 unoptimized. This blog post is originally from 2021.