4 ms·
Why doesn't it look good for python? As far as I'm aware, Python has never been advertised as a top-performance language, and part of the advantage has always b
by misnome 14y ago
Why doesn't it look good for python? As far as I'm aware, Python has never been advertised as a top-performance language, and part of the advantage has always been that you can rewrite performance-critical paths in c.
Adding to this, the fact that BIND is something pretty performance-intensive, I don't think this makes it look bad at all.
- papsosouid 14y ago>Why doesn't it look good for python? Because it directly contradicts the "only 20% of your code is performance sensitive and the other 80% can be scripting language X" nonsense that scripting language apologists constantly parrot with no evidence. This is a good example of how scripting languages are in fact not well suited to application development, and should instead be used for scripting.
- fijal 14y agoOr you should use a fast Python interpreter instead of the slow one. The 20/80 (or 10/90 or so) is mostly nonsense in my experience too.
- halostatue 14y agoI would argue that BIND isn't "merely" an application: it's almost kernel-level in what it needs to do and how it needs to respond. At a minimum, it's system-level—but definitely not application-level.
- papsosouid 14y agoThere is nothing almost kernel-level about it. It is an application. You seem to be trying to draw a very arbitrary distinction between applications and applications that you want to consider special for no particular reason.
- DannoHung 14y agoThe question isn't how much Python there is relative to C++, the question is how much C++ there would be if there were no Python. To put it more concisely: "only 20% of your logic is performance sensitive and the other 80% can be encoded in scripting language X leading to a significant reduction of your total code."
- papsosouid 14y agoIt doesn't lead to a significant reduction though, it is hardly any reduction at all. Look at their code, the python could be replaced with C++ at an almost 1:1 ratio.
- stefantalpalaru 14y agoBecause the stated goal was to use Python "whenever possible" and judging by the python2 bashing at the end of the article, the author is a true believer yet the best he could do was 17% of the total code. This also clashes with the belief in the Python community that performance is not an issue because you just rewrite those few critical sections in C/C++. How's 75% as one possible definition of "few"?
- buster 14y agoWhat stupid comparison is this? Of course there will be more lines of code in C++, but i bet you that 10 lines of python do more then 10 lines of C++. As another comment puts it: How much more C++ would there be without python?
- coldtea 14y ago>Because the stated goal was to use Python "whenever possible" and judging by the python2 bashing at the end of the article, the author is a true believer yet the best he could do was 17% of the total code. Of the total code of a very specific application, with very specific performance needs. For others applications, including servers, the ratio could vary widely.
- eksith 14y agoBashing might be a bit harsh. Looks like the author is expressing legitimate concern about the proliferation of Python 2 over 3 and, let's face it, there are a lot of differences while 3 "is the future" as it says. The percentages may or may not be simply a case of C++ verbosity, but without actually browsing the source, we shouldn't jump the gun on exactly what percentage of "heavy lifting" C++ is doing vs. Python.
- lmm 14y agoIf they're comparing by lines of code, the 17% that's in python may well contain most of the logic.