In article <AK******************************@comcast.com>,
"Jack" <no****@invalid.comwrote:
I learned a lot from the other thread 'Is a "real" C-Python possible?' about
Python performance and optimization. I'm almost convinced that Python's
performance is pretty good for this dynamic language although there are
areas to improve, until I read some articles that say IronPython is a few
times faster. I find it amazing that something that's written in C and runs
on hardware is slower than a .NET app that runs on CLR as managed code:
http://www.python.org/~jeremy/weblog/031209a.html
http://blogs.msdn.com/jasonmatusow/a...28/402940.aspx
You might argue that Python programs executed using CPython "run on
hardware" to a *lesser* extent than they do when run in IronPython. In
either case, your program is parsed and compiled into bytecode (Python
bytecode or MSIL), then loaded by the Python virtual machine or the .NET
VM, respectively. But whereas the Python VM is a bytecode interpreter,
the .NET VM, like Java, uses just-in-time compilation to translate MSIL
bytecode to optimized machine code for more efficient execution. This
is probably the most important factor in the performance difference
demonstrated in the above links.
The fact that the IronPython compiler is written in C# and therefore
runs from the VM, whereas the CPython compiler is compiled straight to
machine code, is unimportant. Even if a significant performance
difference did result from this, keep in mind that the bulk of the
execution time of any Python app worth profiling is going to be after
this initial Python-to-bytecode compilation, during the execution of the
program's bytecode itself.
--
Mark Shroyer
http://markshroyer.com/contact/