Did you know it takes about 17,000 CPU instructions to print(“Hello”) in Python? And that it takes ~2 billion of them to import a module?

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 months ago

      In fact, Python is still decent even if you do need speed. We compared Python and Rust for algorithm processing, and we got similar-ish numbers when using numba. Rust was certainly faster, but we would need to retrain a lot of our team, and numba was plenty fast.

      Python is fast enough, and if it’s not, there are libraries to get it there.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      If I needed speed, I’d be programming in Python but then profiling the performance and re-writing the inner loops and such to call C or BLAS.

  • andnekon@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    I doubt it’s useful for performance evaluation, however, if you are writing a paper and want to compare your algorithm to an existing one, this can be handy

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Eh, maybe? It’s probably only useful for large jumps, and timing is also probably good enough for that as well. With small jumps, instruction execution order matters, so a bigger number could very well be faster if it improves pipelining.

      It’s certainly interesting and maybe useful sometimes, but it’s probably limited to people working on Python itself, not regular users.

    • flatbield@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Same for me. I have used Python for most things since the late 1990s. Love Python. Have always hated the poor performance… but in my case mostly it was good enough. When it was not good enough, I wrote C code.

      Python is good for problems where time to code is the limiting factor. It sucks for compute bound problems where time to execute is the limiting factor. Most problems in my world are time to code limited but some are not.

      Python compute performance has always sucked.

      • Big_Boss_77@lemmynsfw.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I get that… I’m not a developer, I’m a network engineer but I use a lot of python in my day to day operations. I always took python to be the “code for non-coders” which made it infinitely more approachable than some of the other languages.

        I’m not running the F1 grand prix over here, I’m driving to get groceries, so what if it’s not the fastest thing out there. Close enough is good enough for me. And in my experience that’s what people are using python for, daily driving.

        • flatbield@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          People use Python a lot as a Matlab, Excel/VBA, or R alternative. That was my use for many years. Some of these are compute focused problems and if the dataset is large enough and the computations complex enough then speed can be an issue.

          As far as loading packages and printing. Who cares. These are not computationally intensive and are typically IO bound.