Python is slow
cm_gui
Python are slow. Zope/Plone is slow, sloow, so very slooow. Even
Google Apps is not faster. Neither is Youtube.
Facebook and Wikipedia (Mediawiki), written in PHP, are so much faster
than Python.
Okay, they probably use caching or some code compilation -- but Google
Apps and those Zope sites probably also use caching.
I've yet to see a web application written in Python which is really
fast.
Mike Driscoll
Dan Upton
Really fast, or fast enough? Because "fast enough" is all that really
matters. I don't notice any difference in HTML load time between your
various examples, what's slower is downloading all of the thumbnails
or doing AJAX calls.
inhahe
if there is one, because there's a website online that shows the results of
a dozen or so benchmarks when comparing any two languages. Python beats PHP
in almost all the benchmarks. (it also beats almost all the other languages
(they're all scripting languages) in most of the benchmarks, lua being the
only exception i remember.)
"cm_gui" <cmg...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a725111b-0dce-4923...@k10g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
Jason Scheirer
This post is a troll written by someone who has already made up their
mind. I really don't recommend trying to argue here. I've written
plenty of fast, fast Python and there are countless Python processes
on servers out there that is not only fast but transparently so.
Arnaud Delobelle
You're slow too. And your mum. And your car is so slow, it gets
overtaken by slugs. Whereas I'm really fast, I'll race you to the end
of the street and we'll see who wins. My mum's fast, my car's got a
super fast noisy exhaust.
So there.
--
Arnaud
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> Python is slow.
Oh, a troll...
Err, a very bad troll actually. Trop gros, passera pas.
Brad
> Python is slow.
It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between.
I find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really
matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language
(Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++) and you'll be just
fine. Until then, quit bitching.
Larry Bates
You are just dead wrong about this. Bad programmers will write slow software in
any language. There are some HUGE sites using Zope. I think much of Google's
software is written in Python. I have programs that have surprised me with
their speed. If your Python program is slow, you have almost assuredly
approached it with a wrong method or algorithm. www.websafe.com is completely
written in Python and we support thousands of users uploading data
simultaneously at wire speed (and that includes AES-256 encryption on our end).
-Larry
sturlamolden
> I've yet to see a web application written in Python which is really
> fast.
I bet you have a slow dial-up connection.
Carl Banks
I expect Dave Parker here any minute to tell us how Flaming Thunder
isn't slow.
Carl Banks
Erich
<snip lots>
> My mum's fast...<more snipping>
<snip some more>
> Arnaud
Was it a good idea to include that bit in a troll response?
If English isn't your first language, it's one of those language
idioms that's not very nice to say about someone's mother (especially
your own mother).
Erich
Matthew Trevor
> I've yet to see a web application written in Python which is really
> fast.
Then stop looking at your own inept Python code and open your eyes.
RPM1
> If your Python program is
> slow, you have almost assuredly approached it with a wrong method or
> algorithm.
I agree for most applications. There are however times where Python
just isn't fast enough, and that's usually when people write extension
modules.
I have yet to see a chess engine written in Python that is competitive
with even a below average C or C++ chess engine. The same could be said
of Java, VB, C#, Pearl, ...
So there ARE some tasks that Python just isn't suited for due to
performance, but not enough for it to steer anyone away from Python.
I have been working on a chess engine and have found that I prototype in
Python and then port to the D programming language, (which IS fast).
For example, one of my routines, (generating pseudo-legal moves -- no
evaluation), in Python runs at 700,000 moves per second, (using Psyco).
Ported to D it runs at 22 million moves per second.
Python's advantage is in the software development and maintenance
phases. As long as the runtime phase is fast ENOUGH, Python kicks most
other languages butts.
Patrick
Kay Schluehr
> > I've yet to see a web application written in Python which is really
> > fast.
>
> You are just dead wrong about this.
No, he can demand whatever he wants and we can be stupid enough to
respond.
Andrew Lee
So --- don't use Google
* shrug *
Personally I find PHP to be a hideous language -- it has only one use.
It is Perl for people who can be bothered to learn a general purpose
programming language and just write web applications.
Python is a general purpose programming language ... it does web nicely
(Django and pylons!), it supports real OOP and OOD, it's extensible, it
has a smart set of libraries, intelligent and coherent interfaces, it
sails across platforms, it has at least one great ORM (SQLAlchemy) and I
keep discovering new cool things about the language as a recent convert
that make me wonder why I would ever write another large application in
Perl or Java.
I find Zope to be a mess and it gives me a headache ... but it Zope is
an *application framework*, not a *programming language*. So, I think
you are barking up the wrong straw man (if I may mix metaphors).
But that's just my $0.02.
Bruno Desthuilliers
> cm_gui wrote:
>> Python is slow.
>
> It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between.
> I find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really
> matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language
> (Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++)
LordHaveMercy(tm). Could you guys please learn what you're talking about?
1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
implementation of a language.
2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
Carl Banks
You know, even though you're technically correct, I'd like to see you
abandon this little crusade. At this point it's more noisy than
helpful.
Like it or not, to most of the world, "interpreted" vs. "compiled" is
a vague pragmatic distinction between fast machine-coded languages and
not-so-fast non-machine-coded languages. And like it or not, the
world rarely cares to make the distinction between language and
implementation, and frankly, it's usually not necessary to.
What Brad said is perfectly acceptable, and good advice IMHO, under
the common usage of the terms. I really don't see much reason to call
someone out on it unless they're being deliberately misleading.
Carl Banks
inhahe
"Bruno Desthuilliers" <bruno.42.de...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote in
message news:4836772e$0$6097$426a...@news.free.fr...
> Brad a écrit :
>> cm_gui wrote:
>>> Python is slow.
>>
>> It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between. I
>> find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really
>> matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language
>> (Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++)
>
> LordHaveMercy(tm). Could you guys please learn what you're talking about?
>
> 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
> terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
> implementation of a language.
That's like saying being spherical is not a property of planets, it's a
property of an instanciation of a planet. Let alone that a) all known
planets are spherical (all implementations of Python are not natively
compiled (and you said for whatever definition)), and b) It's a far cry to
imagine a planet coming into being that's not spherical (a language as
dynamic as Python, or most other scripting languages, would be either
extremely difficult or impossible to make a native compiler for). I guess I
should also mention that Python isn't very practical (as in "suitable",
"right tool for the job", and "perfomance", as mentioned in the above post)
without an implementation. So I don't think this distinction has any use
other than to beat other people over the head with a bat.
>
> 2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
>
Which is then interpreted, but you're still technically right, because
"compiled" can mean either compiled to bytecode or compiled to native code,
despite what it actually did mean. Semantics FTW!!
Ivan Illarionov
It's wrong. Here's why.
Compare your statement to:
"OP: Humans are weak.
"Brad: They ain't gorillas, but they ain't insects either...
somewhere in between."
Python is *not* in between C++ and something else. It's far ahead
of them all. Raw speed is not the most important thing in programming
languages like raw physical strength is not the most important thing
in life.
Pure Python has less raw speed than most compiled-to-machine-code
languages, but it doesn't matter. Python can be extended easily and,
most important, Python is smart.
Ivan
Paul Rubin
> planets are spherical (all implementations of Python are not natively
> compiled (and you said for whatever definition)), and b) It's a far cry to
> imagine a planet coming into being that's not spherical (a language as
> dynamic as Python, or most other scripting languages, would be either
> extremely difficult or impossible to make a native compiler for).
There are native Python compilers, see psyco and pypy.
Bruno Desthuilliers
(snip technically pedantic correction)
> You know, even though you're technically correct, I'd like to see you
> abandon this little crusade. At this point it's more noisy than
> helpful.
Mmm... You're probably right. I tend to be way too pedantic sometimes.
OTHO, there are people not even having the slightest clue here - I once
was - and being corrected on similar things usually helped me. But yes,
I'll try to refrain myself...
Grant Edwards
> Larry Bates wrote:
>> If your Python program is slow, you have almost assuredly
>> approached it with a wrong method or algorithm.
>
> I agree for most applications. There are however times where
> Python just isn't fast enough, and that's usually when people
> write extension modules.
Writing an extension modules is probably pretty far down the
list. What usually happens is people
a) Figure out they're using the wrong algorithm
b) Find the library module that already does the "bottleneck"
operations.
--
Grant
Eric Brunel
... and C/C++ interpreters; see:
http://root.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/ROOT/CINT
--
python -c "print ''.join([chr(154 - ord(c)) for c in
'U(17zX(%,5.zmz5(17l8(%,5.Z*(93-965$l7+-'])"
Aaron Lance
Andrii V. Mishkovskyi
Troll harder.
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>
--
Wbr, Andrii Mishkovskyi.
He's got a heart of a little child, and he keeps it in a jar on his desk.
Méta-MCI (MVP)
Perso, je pense que des précisions comme celles de Bruno sont très
utiles, car elles évitent les dérives, et l'apparition de langages
bâtards, et impurs (pythonesquement parlant).
Non aux Pythons OGM !!!
Toutefois, iles est dommage que je comprenne pas l'anglais, et donc pas
vraiment son message/discours...
@+
Michel Claveau
inhahe
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr...@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
news:7xk5hll...@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
That does complicate the question since there are 4 levels of executing code
interpreted
bytecode-compiled-interpreted
jit-complied
natively compiled
i've tried psyco a few times and never noticed much of a speed increase. if
any.
and then on the other hand, .net is supposed to be almost as fast as C
because of its JIT. but the whole issue of the speed of .net seems to be
enshrouded in mystery, so who knows.
bruno.des...@gmail.com
> "Bruno Desthuilliers" <bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote in
> messagenews:4836772e$0$6097$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
> > Brad a écrit :
> >> cm_gui wrote:
> >>> Python is slow.
>
> >> It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between. I
> >> find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really
> >> matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language
> >> (Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++)
>
> > LordHaveMercy(tm). Could you guys please learn what you're talking about?
>
> > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
> > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
> > implementation of a language.
>
> That's like saying being spherical is not a property of planets, it's a
> property of an instanciation of a planet.
I do definitively not have the required knowledge to say anything
about "being spherical" being part of the definition of what a
"planet" is or not.
>, and b) It's a far cry to
> imagine a planet coming into being that's not spherical
Idem
> (a language as
> dynamic as Python, or most other scripting languages, would be either
> extremely difficult or impossible to make a native compiler for).
Now this I can tell is false. The problem is not that it's difficult
to "make a native compiler for" dynamic languages, the problem is that
it's difficult to write native compiler for dynamic languages that
generates code that beats the VM/byte-code interpreter/whatever you
name it to be wotrh the effort.
> I guess I
> should also mention that Python isn't very practical (as in "suitable",
> "right tool for the job", and "perfomance", as mentioned in the above post)
> without an implementation.
That is debatable. There are algorithm courses taught in "pseudo-code"
- that is, a language that doesn't have any known implementation.
> So I don't think this distinction has any use
> other than to beat other people over the head with a bat.
Ok, *you* know this - I mean, the distinction between a language and a
language's implementation(s). Are you sure everyone saying - or
reading - assertions such as "language XXX is slow" or "compiled
languages are faster" etc really know what they're talking about ?
> > 2/ actually, all known Python implementations compile to byte-code.
>
> Which is then interpreted, but you're still technically right, because
> "compiled" can mean either compiled to bytecode or compiled to native code,
> despite what it actually did mean. Semantics FTW!!
Yes, semantics. But a bit more than semantics - byte-code interpreters
are usually way faster than "pure" interpreter, and start to be fast
enough for quite a lot of practical use.
Ok, I'll stop on this - once again, sorry for the noise, and please
bear with me, I tend to be a bit too much on the pedantic side
sometimes. But still, thanks to the pedantics peoples on usenet that
taught me so much so far and still teach me more and more...
cm_gui
compiled languages.
if there is any consolation to Python lovers here, Python is still
faster than Microsoft ASP/ASPX.
i'm not trying to 'troll' here. it's not just me.
many have complained that python is slow. python websites are slow.
if python is such a good programming/scripting language,
why can't they build a faster interpreter/compiler engine?
and beat php and zend.
to the python team, rebuild your interpreter!
torontolife.com is slow.
okay, maybe Python is only slightly slower than PHP,
but it APPEARS to be much slower.
there is a distinct waiting time whenever you access a python web page
before the page starts loading. but once it loads, it is fast.
php page starts loading immediately once you access it,
but you can see the page slowly loading.
because you see the page starts loading immediately, you feel it is
fast.
On May 22, 10:04 am, Mike Driscoll <kyoso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 22, 11:14 am, cm_gui <cmg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Pythonisslow. Almost all of the web applications written in
> >Pythonareslow. Zope/Plone isslow, sloow, so very slooow. Even
> > Google Apps is not faster. Neither is Youtube.
> > Facebook and Wikipedia (Mediawiki), written in PHP, are so much faster
> > thanPython.
> > Okay, they probably use caching or some code compilation -- but Google
> > Apps and those Zope sites probably also use caching.
>
> > I've yet to see a web application written inPythonwhich is really
> > fast.
>
> What abouthttp://www.torontolife.com/? It uses Django...
>
> Mike
Jeremy Pager
Except this conversation is not about whether Python is smart. It's about
whether Python is fast, so yes, in the context of this conversation, it
does matter.
Torsten Bronger
cm_gui writes:
> [...]
>
> if python is such a good programming/scripting language,
> why can't they build a faster interpreter/compiler engine?
> and beat php and zend.
> to the python team, rebuild your interpreter!
>
> torontolife.com is slow.
For me, torontolife.com is exactly as fast as Wikipedia.
Tschö,
Torsten.
--
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
Jabber ID: bro...@jabber.org
(See http://ime.webhop.org for further contact info.)
Paolo Victor
biased assumption:
"I mean, it's not that slow - wait, I guess it's slower, because I...
I think so! Yeah! It's slow! At least it feels like it..."
It's all about choosing the right tool. If you think Python doesn't
suit your needs, you really should look for something that does,
instead of wasting your (and our) time with "guesses" and "feelings".
Research/develop/execute a benchmark. Gather and analyze relevant
data. Make a real contribution.
Peace,
Paolo
On May 24, 3:12 am, Torsten Bronger <bron...@physik.rwth-aachen.de>
wrote:
> Hallöchen!
>
> cm_gui writes:
> > [...]
>
> > if python is such a good programming/scripting language,
> > why can't they build a faster interpreter/compiler engine?
> > and beat php and zend.
> > to the python team, rebuild your interpreter!
>
> > torontolife.com is slow.
>
> For me, torontolife.com is exactly as fast as Wikipedia.
>
> Tschö,
> Torsten.
>
> --
> Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus
> Jabber ID: bron...@jabber.org
> (Seehttp://ime.webhop.orgfor further contact info.)
Carl Banks
> i'm not trying to 'troll' here.
Maybe you're not trying, but you're succeeding.
If you want to criticize be constructive about it, otherwise get out.
Carl Banks
David C. Ullrich
>On 23 mai, 10:42, "inhahe" <inh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Bruno Desthuilliers" <bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> wrote in
>> messagenews:4836772e$0$6097$426a...@news.free.fr...
>>
>> > Brad a écrit :
>> >> cm_gui wrote:
>> >>> Python is slow.
>>
>> >> It ain't C++, but it ain't a punch card either... somewhere in between. I
>> >> find it suitable for lots of stuff. I use C++ when performance really
>> >> matters tho... right tool for the job. Learn a good interpreted language
>> >> (Pyhton) and a good compiled language (C or C++)
>>
>> > LordHaveMercy(tm). Could you guys please learn what you're talking about?
>>
>> > 1/ being interpreted or compiled (for whatever definition of these
>> > terms) is not a property of a language, but a property of an
>> > implementation of a language.
>>
>> That's like saying being spherical is not a property of planets, it's a
>> property of an instanciation of a planet.
>
>I do definitively not have the required knowledge to say anything
>about "being spherical" being part of the definition of what a
>"planet" is or not.
I wasn't going to mention this since it's really not relevant,
but since you raise the question: Actually it was a bad analogy
because being roughly spherical _is_ part of the definition of
"planet". (Of course "spherical" must mean "roughly spherical"
here, since no planet is exactly spherical.)
A little while ago when Pluto got demoted so it's no longer
officially a planet they came up with a definition - part of
the definition is that the body is large enough that gravity
causes it to assume a spherical shape.
David C. Ullrich
Ivan Illarionov
> i am not comparing Python with C or C++ which are of course compiled
> languages.
>
> if there is any consolation to Python lovers here, Python is still
> faster than Microsoft ASP/ASPX.
>
> i'm not trying to 'troll' here. it's not just me. many have complained
> that python is slow. python websites are slow.
>
> if python is such a good programming/scripting language, why can't they
> build a faster interpreter/compiler engine? and beat php and zend.
> to the python team, rebuild your interpreter!
>
>
> torontolife.com is slow.
>
> okay, maybe Python is only slightly slower than PHP, but it APPEARS to
> be much slower.
> there is a distinct waiting time whenever you access a python web page
> before the page starts loading. but once it loads, it is fast. php page
> starts loading immediately once you access it, but you can see the page
> slowly loading. because you see the page starts loading immediately, you
> feel it is fast.
It's only your feelings based on prejudice.
Please look at the real benchmarks:
http://www.alrond.com/en/2007/jan/25/performance-test-of-6-leading-
frameworks/
PHP is the slowest.
Python/Django is the fastest. 2x-35x times faster then PHP.
Give us the real benchmarks or stop trolling.
Ivan
Eric Wertman
> build a faster interpreter/compiler engine? and beat php and zend.
> to the python team, rebuild your interpreter!
while this is just a boring troll.. it does bring me to a more
interesting point... it would be cool if the interpreter were
multi-threaded to make better use of smp systems. While you can do
threading, if you really want to drive more than one cpu some forking
is in order.
Lie
<flamingmode useofbrain="alotforaflame">
LordHaveMercy(violatingsomeonesTM). Couldn't you understand that a CPU
INTERPRET bytes of instruction, and that means ALL languages is
interpreted in one stages or another, some languages' (implementation)
is translated/compiled into an intermediate language/bytecode like
most Python or C/C++ or Java implementations, some language
implementation interprets the language directly (like Javascript).
The difference between C and Python (in their regular implementation)
is WHO interprets it, most C/C++'s implementation is interpreted
directly by the CPU, all Python's implementation is interpreted by a
VM. Saying a language implementation is interpreted is nonsense as all
languages implementation is interpreted either by a VM or by CPU or an
interpretator, but we do have a semantic agreement that calling a
language interpreted means it is NOT interpreted by the CPU directly,
some minority have their own agreement that a language
(implementation) is interpreted when it is never translated into an
intermediate language/bytecode, you fall into this second group, which
actually uses the wrong terminology but do have some followers. Don't
forget that language is all about what the _consensus_ says, not what
the dictionary says.
Brad doesn't use any terms incorrectly, he stated that Python is
interpreted, which is true, since in all python implementation,
Python's bytecode is interpreted by a VM. He also states that C/C++ is
compiled which is also true as most if not all C++ implementation have
a stage where it is translated into an intermediate language/bytecode.
</flamingmode>
John Salerno
news:5ccb8e61-ad53-48aa...@a32g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> okay, maybe Python is only slightly slower than PHP,
> but it APPEARS to be much slower.
> there is a distinct waiting time whenever you access a python web page
> before the page starts loading. but once it loads, it is fast.
> php page starts loading immediately once you access it,
> but you can see the page slowly loading.
> because you see the page starts loading immediately, you feel it is
> fast.
::crickets::
Jan Claeys
> Now this I can tell is false. The problem is not that it's difficult to
> "make a native compiler for" dynamic languages, the problem is that it's
> difficult to write native compiler for dynamic languages that generates
> code that beats the VM/byte-code interpreter/whatever you name it to be
> wotrh the effort.
Well, it would be much easier if there would be hardware that was
designed for object oriented & dynamic programming... ;-)
(Most current hardware is designed for use with C & similar languages, or
sometimes for massively parrallel computing (e.g. GPUs), but the last
tries to design hardware to fit something like Python date back to the
1980s AFAIK...)
--
JanC
Sean Allen
On May 24, 2008, at 1:56 AM, cm_gui wrote:
> okay, maybe Python is only slightly slower than PHP,
> but it APPEARS to be much slower.
> there is a distinct waiting time whenever you access a python web page
> before the page starts loading. but once it loads, it is fast.
> php page starts loading immediately once you access it,
> but you can see the page slowly loading.
> because you see the page starts loading immediately, you feel it is
> fast.
that is a product your html. in fact, there are entire books written
about it.
for example, if i put a external script in the head of the page that
is a large
script, rendering of the entire page will pause.
if that script isnt needed to display the intial page, by moving the
script
tag to the end of the body of the page, rendering will proceed quicker
in
terms of time to display to user although overall speed will be the
same.
Mark Tarver
> Python is slow. Almost all of the web applications written in
> Google Apps is not faster. Neither is Youtube.
> Facebook and Wikipedia (Mediawiki), written in PHP, are so much faster
> than Python.
> Okay, they probably use caching or some code compilation -- but Google
> Apps and those Zope sites probably also use caching.
>
> fast.
You might like to look at Norvig's analysis which supports your view
about Python being slow.
http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html
Mark
Baris-C
> Python is slow. Almost all of the web applications written in
> Python are slow. Zope/Plone is slow, sloow, so very slooow. Even
> Google Apps is not faster. Neither is Youtube.
> Facebook and Wikipedia (Mediawiki), written in PHP, are so much faster
> than Python.
> Okay, they probably use caching or some code compilation -- but Google
> Apps and those Zope sites probably also use caching.
>
> I've yet to see a web application written in Python which is really
> fast.
I do not have much experience on python but, php is %25 more faster
than python in a simple iteration.