05:32 <razzy> i have gain information that people using pypy as golden speed standard now. i have no time to try it now.

08:21 <beneroth> Good morning

08:22 <Regenaxer> Servus beneroth!

08:23 <beneroth> razzy, 'golden speed standard' in what context? purely python? then sure, better compiler might give better speed. but in general, it is and will remain C (as we ignore ASM and Forth). The hardware is tailored to C.

08:23 <beneroth> Servus Regenaxer :)

08:24 <Regenaxer> I would say just C, Forth is not particularly fast

08:24 <Regenaxer> Forth has quite some speed panalty due to the stack architecture

08:25 <Regenaxer> But Forth is faster than Pil I would say

09:08 <razzy> Regenaxer: golden standard for python speed. I had been told pypy is 10 times faster than "original" python. I think Python make good speed comparison to picolisp.

11:26 <beneroth> yeah I would expect python and picolisp to be about in a similar ballpark, with picolisp probably a bit faster than interpreted python.

11:27 <beneroth> python startup is quite slower than picolisp I've found.

11:29 <beneroth> I haven't run detailed benchmarks. In practice a lot more stuff matters, and at the moment maintainability is more expensive to optimize than performance.

11:44 <Regenaxer> beneroth, right

17:50 <razzy> beneroth: Regenaxer: I still like picolisp more. I value transparency and maintain-ability more than little more speed. I am saying, that if somebody make another comparison picolisp to python, it should be pypy. (it might be me in january.)

17:55 <Regenaxer> ok

18:22 <beneroth> razzy, looking forward to your comparisons/insights :)

18:27 <beneroth> razzy, maybe interesting in that context too: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29159545

19:10 <razzy> beneroth: python ecosystem seems like hell. problems of large under-managed community :]

20:28 <beneroth> not enough KISSes =)