Linux  and Free Software :: suckless.org



Quote
the biggest bottleneck in OOo is the requirement of Java to run.


Ah, Java - interesting.  Python was just my theory.

But do you have any hard data about python's execution speed as compared with, say, bash or Perl? I guess it depends on exactly what it being done and how optimised the code is.  

Anyway, more to the point  - it's an obvious pity that such a seminal and important suite of programs (OOo) is slow (to load and to run).  Hopefully it's improving.  More power to OOo
Quote (WDef @ Oct. 30 2006,08:09)
Quote
the biggest bottleneck in OOo is the requirement of Java to run.


Ah, Java - interesting.  Python was just my theory.

But do you have any hard data about python's execution speed as compared with, say, bash or Perl? I guess it depends on exactly what it being done and how optimised the code is.  

Anyway, more to the point  - it's an obvious pity that such a seminal and important suite of programs (OOo) is slow (to load and to run).  Hopefully it's improving.  More power to OOo


For comparing speed and memory used by various langaues
this site is always fun to visit Computer Language Shootout
Choose your processor type, then compare your favorite language.
Weird synchronicity! - I've just been looking at that very site.

Lua (on p4) comes off well compared to python (not surprising), and perl kills it in some areas (again, not surprising I guess).  Say what you want but there's very little that ugly old perl can't do and do fast, if you can put up with the fugliness - which I why I've been trying to learn a bit of Perl lately.

But "it all comes down to what's right for the job" - trying to save a few cpu cycles in an era of 3Ghz+ processors is nuts, and python people swear it's so easy to code in, with less lines of code. And then there's fast external modules written in C++.

Civilization 4 is written in python so I've heard ...

I'm always open to being eventually converted to Python I suppose ...
Quote (WDef @ Oct. 30 2006,11:36)
But "it all comes down to what's right for the job" - trying to save a few cpu cycles in an era of 3Ghz+ processors is nuts, and python people swear it's so easy to code in, with less lines of code. And then there's fast external modules written in C++.

Ruby, lua, squirrel, even perl allow native modules too. In general, I'd say really the size of the runtime itself is more important for a scripting language now than how fast it can perform.

By the way, if you read the sandbox benchmarks, you can see LuaJIT clobbers Perl and Python Psycho easily, and even competes decently well with gcj and Mono AOT. (Unfortunately, YARV isn't doing too well yet, which is a bit of a letdown to an occasional Ruby programmer like myself.)
Quote
I'd say really the size of the runtime itself is more important for a scripting language now than how fast it can perform.

I have the same opinion (note that's "opinion" and not "fact").  Python is seriously fat by nearly any comparison, and that makes it much less appealing to me.  Lua and Tcl, while both may not be as powerful as Python, are much easier to incorporate into a system when you consider small harddrives and dialup networking as factors. On top of this, Python is a mess of files.  I've gone through the install directory a few times, and it made my head hurt =o)
Next Page...
original here.