| 1 |
Am 10.01.2014 14:05, schrieb Igor: |
| 2 |
> Hello Patrick, |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> Friday, January 10, 2014, 4:39:59 PM, you wrote: |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> No, Python isn't slow. |
| 7 |
>> Bad code is bad. You can write bad code in any language. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> Are you sure? Take a look here: |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u32q/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=python3&lang2=gpp&data=u32q |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> of course these stats are all so fake, and you may not belive them. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I've been using C/C++ since school it's fast, even bad code is working fast. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> I WOULD NEVER BELIVE PYTHON IS AS FAST AS C++ with math algorithms |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You do realize, that we are not doing math (read: number crunching) here? |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
And again: What is needed is streamlining the algorithms (discussion on |
| 22 |
that already started as far as I could notice). An algorithm in O(n³) is |
| 23 |
always¹ worse than O(n). The constant factor added by the language |
| 24 |
difference is of no interest. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> It's crazy that you're even trying to state it. Take a look at what |
| 27 |
> Python is producing in disasm and then look at it in G++. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For a larger project, it often is more important to have readable and |
| 30 |
maintable code opposed to getting the last bit of performance. And |
| 31 |
Python is _far_ more readable and concise than C or C++ (imho). Due to |
| 32 |
lack of typechecking, I'm not so sure when it comes to maintainability |
| 33 |
though (there are test suites of course). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
- René |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
¹ For a large enough n. |
Archives