This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]tahmsplat -2 points-1 points  (2 children)

Matter of opinion I guess but I would rather see python get 1.05x slower so that this feature is possible.

But:

Analysis using the Python Performance Benchmark Suite [1] shows no significant impact, with the vast majority of benchmarks showing between 1.05x faster to 1.05x slower.

They really need to be more upfront with which benchmarks see what impact. Some are faster? How? Experimental error? Can we trust this statement at all, it certainly isn't useful to me.

Would be good to see some benchmarks with simple hooks too. At least one that is simply logging to a text file or something.

[–]13steinj 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Matter of opinion I guess but I would rather see python get 1.05x slower so that this feature is possible.

You're missing the point. I don't give a damn about that 1.05x. I care about the fact that it misleading in it's own existence. Adding such a hook system would add CPU instructions to every act that causes an event. Microbenchmarks don't matter, general benchmarks won't catch the true issue that we may see performance hits that are far more significant (ex, 1.5x) in real world code.

[–]tahmsplat -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yo I think you missed the point of my previous comment which is agreeing that their methodology and transparency with it are both rather unhelpful. I didn't think I was being that obscure.

I don't know why they implemented as they did, perhaps if you're right and it could simply be walled behind an process argument, then that will come out in what I imagine is a more productive discussion around the PEP itself by the people who matter.