Is this make sence? Dynamic assembler for python
in [Python]
|
Prev: MAKE UPTO $5000 PER MONTH! $2000 IN FIRST 30 DAYS!
Next: introducing Lettuce, BDD tool for python with Django integration
From: DivX on 19 Jun 2010 14:53 I found on the forum some discussion about crypting text and one guy did make assembly implementation of crypting algorithm. He dynamically generates mashine code and call that from python. Here are impressive results http://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632-5.html Is this better approach then writing extensions in c?
From: geremy condra on 19 Jun 2010 15:18 On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, DivX <sem.radi(a)gmail.com> wrote: > I found on the forum some discussion about crypting text and one guy > did make assembly implementation of crypting algorithm. He dynamically > generates mashine code and call that from python. Here are impressive > results http://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632-5.html > > Is this better approach then writing extensions in c? No, xor cipher is not suitable for general purpose encryption, and what do you need the speed for? xor is almost certainly not going to be the bottleneck in your application. Geremy Condra
From: DivX on 19 Jun 2010 16:36 On 19 lip, 21:18, geremy condra <debat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, DivX <sem.r...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > I found on the forum some discussion about crypting text and one guy > > did make assembly implementation of crypting algorithm. He dynamically > > generates mashine code and call that from python. Here are impressive > > resultshttp://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632-5.html > > > Is this better approach then writing extensions in c? > > No, xor cipher is not suitable for general purpose encryption, and what do you > need the speed for? xor is almost certainly not going to be the bottleneck in > your application. > > Geremy Condra Just asking if this approach is good for example quicksort algoriths or some kind of sorting algorithms, or simulations but the point is of mixing python and assembler?
From: Steven D'Aprano on 19 Jun 2010 20:52 On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 13:36:57 -0700, DivX wrote: > On 19 lip, 21:18, geremy condra <debat...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sat, Jun 19, 2010 at 11:53 AM, DivX <sem.r...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> > I found on the forum some discussion about crypting text and one guy >> > did make assembly implementation of crypting algorithm. He >> > dynamically generates mashine code and call that from python. Here >> > are impressive >> > resultshttp://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632-5.html >> >> > Is this better approach then writing extensions in c? >> >> No, xor cipher is not suitable for general purpose encryption, and what >> do you need the speed for? xor is almost certainly not going to be the >> bottleneck in your application. >> >> Geremy Condra > > Just asking if this approach is good for example quicksort algoriths or > some kind of sorting algorithms, or simulations but the point is of > mixing python and assembler? Ask yourself, why aren't programs written in assembly if it's so good? (1) It's platform dependent. Do you really need a separate program for every single hardware platform you want to run Quicksort on? (2) Writing assembler is hard, really hard. And even harder to debug. (3) Modern C compilers can produce better (faster, more efficient) machine code than the best assembly code written by hand. Honestly, this question has been resolved twenty years ago -- thirty years ago, maybe there was still a good point in writing general purpose code in assembly, but now? It's just showing off. Unless you're writing hardware specific code (e.g. device drivers) it is pointless, in my opinion. I think that mixing assembly and python is a gimmick of very little practical significance. If you really need the extra performance, check out PyPy, Cython, Pyrex and Psyco. -- Steven
From: Terry Reedy on 19 Jun 2010 21:08
On 6/19/2010 2:53 PM, DivX wrote: > I found on the forum some discussion about crypting text and one guy > did make assembly implementation of crypting algorithm. He dynamically > generates mashine code and call that from python. Here are impressive > results http://www.daniweb.com/code/snippet216632-5.html > > Is this better approach then writing extensions in c? You have to define 'better'. This approach requires someone to write template assembler code, which will be machine specific. To be faster than compiled C on a particular machine, one must be pretty good at assemblee also. |