| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v8d6dd$1idgc$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bart <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: "Python is 71x Slower, Uses 75x More Energy, Than C" - YouTube
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 12:15:58 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <v8d6dd$1idgc$1@dont-email.me>
References: <v8bv5k$18i9h$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2024 13:15:58 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="347b83598d1f9579c61ddef4ed8d87f6";
logging-data="1652236"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/wDxgQ4kmkuJor1jtggLyp"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iLF1DhbfcAujy9v9Wn7obIKt+qs=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <v8bv5k$18i9h$2@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 2708
On 31/07/2024 01:06, Lynn McGuire wrote:
> "Python is 71x Slower, Uses 75x More Energy, Than C" - YouTube
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4c6nFGt1iM
Could that guy's voice be any more annoying?
Anyway, some observations:
* CPython (I assume this is Cpython), is of course just a program
written in C. So it's really just a C application ...
* The C results are going to be mostly thanks to the efforts of
aggressively optimising compilers, rather than the language itself. I
guess they weren't using Tiny C!
* The test programs are all from the computer language benchmarks game,
which are mostly useless for comparisons. Because entries can choose
their own algorithms, employ multi-threading etc. So it's no surprise
there is such a wide range of results.
* When Python is used for a one-off program that runs in a fraction of a
second, the fact that is is 70 times slower than the C equivalent is
irrelevant. But if you include the build-time for the C, then the Python
may well have used fewer machine resources.
>
> I am not buying that C++ is slower than Rust.
>
> The referenced paper is:
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0167642321000022
>
It's the computer benchmarks game; I wouldn't pay too much attention.
When I once tested of its programs ('fannkuch') I got these results,
although they are several years old (3 out of 24 shown):
Clang -O3 2.45 secs
Rustc -O 3.2
Tiny C 10.1
Rustc 37.8
Rust in debug mode ran a magnitude slower than optimised releae mode.
Maybe it was interpreted? I never found out why.