<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: 64k version of python is 4234x faster* than c-python!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2007/12/22/64k-version-of-python-is-4234x-faster-than-c-python/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2007/12/22/64k-version-of-python-is-4234x-faster-than-c-python/</link>
	<description>game dev blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 29 Aug 2010 18:58:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Ycros</title>
		<link>http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2007/12/22/64k-version-of-python-is-4234x-faster-than-c-python/comment-page-1/#comment-433</link>
		<dc:creator>Ycros</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 07:34:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philhassey.com/blog/2007/12/22/64k-version-of-python-is-4234x-faster-than-c-python/#comment-433</guid>
		<description>ctypes is actually really easy, the bad thing about ctypes is that you&#039;re going to a C-libraries ABI, not to its API, and this can be brittle. Using the C-Python API is much better, although it takes longer to use. You should also take a look at Pyrex, which lets you write very python-like code which gets compiled down to C - which might be what you want.

Also, take a look at: stackless python, psyco, libs like numpy/scipy.

And make sure to profile your apps before trying to fix a performance problem! Sometimes performance problems can be easily fixed without having to rewrite things in C.

I don&#039;t think py3k is going to have massive performance improvements - it&#039;s more of a backwards-incompatible cleaning-things-up release with a few extra funky features, nothing on the scale of the rewrites that ruby 2 and perl 6 are.

You could also try looking at other languages which might be faster but aren&#039;t as painful as low-level C, such as: OCaml, haskell, one of the many common-lisp implementations, hell maybe even D/Java/C# (though I consider these lower-level than the other languages I&#039;ve named). I guess Python has an awesome amount of libraries though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ctypes is actually really easy, the bad thing about ctypes is that you&#8217;re going to a C-libraries ABI, not to its API, and this can be brittle. Using the C-Python API is much better, although it takes longer to use. You should also take a look at Pyrex, which lets you write very python-like code which gets compiled down to C &#8211; which might be what you want.</p>
<p>Also, take a look at: stackless python, psyco, libs like numpy/scipy.</p>
<p>And make sure to profile your apps before trying to fix a performance problem! Sometimes performance problems can be easily fixed without having to rewrite things in C.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think py3k is going to have massive performance improvements &#8211; it&#8217;s more of a backwards-incompatible cleaning-things-up release with a few extra funky features, nothing on the scale of the rewrites that ruby 2 and perl 6 are.</p>
<p>You could also try looking at other languages which might be faster but aren&#8217;t as painful as low-level C, such as: OCaml, haskell, one of the many common-lisp implementations, hell maybe even D/Java/C# (though I consider these lower-level than the other languages I&#8217;ve named). I guess Python has an awesome amount of libraries though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
