Skip to content

Update wording #28

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
certik merged 1 commit into from
Jul 28, 2023
Merged

Update wording #28

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions content/blog/lpython_mvp.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1626,6 +1626,6 @@ Done.

## Conclusion

The benchmarks support the claim that LPython is competitive with its competitors in all features it offers. In JIT, the execution times of LPython-compiled functions are at least as short as equivalent Numba functions.The speed of JIT compilation, itself, is slow in some cases because it depends on a C compiler to generate optimal binary code. For algorithms with rich data structures like `dict` (hash maps) and `list`, LPython shows much faster speed than Numba. In AoT compilation for tasks like the Dijkstra algorithm, LPython beats equivalent C++ code very comfortably. For an array-based implementation of the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, LPython generates code almost as fast as C++ does.
The benchmarks support the claim that LPython is competitive with its competitors in all features it offers. In JIT, the execution times of LPython-compiled functions are at least as short as equivalent Numba functions. The speed of JIT compilation, itself, is slow in some cases because it currently depends on a C compiler to generate optimal binary code. For algorithms with rich data structures like `dict` (hash maps) and `list`, LPython shows much faster speed than Numba. In AoT compilation for tasks like the Dijkstra algorithm, LPython beats equivalent C++ code very comfortably. For an array-based implementation of the Floyd-Warshall algorithm, LPython generates code almost as fast as C++ does.

The main takeaway is that LPython/LFortran generate fast code by default. Our benchmarks show that it's straightforward to write high-speed LPython code. We hope to raise expectations that LPython output will be in general at least as fast as the equivalent C++ code. Users love Python because of its many productivity advantages: great tooling, easy syntax, and rich data structures like lists, dicts, sets, and arrays. Because any LPython program is also an ordinary Python program, all the tools -- debuggers and profilers, for instance -- just work. Then, LPython delivers run-time speeds, even with rich data structures at least as short as alternatives in most cases. In the future, LPython will allow user-defined implementations of data structures for those rare cases where the versions shipped with LPython are not good enough.
The main takeaway is that LPython/LFortran generate fast code by default. Our benchmarks show that it's straightforward to write high-speed LPython code. We hope to raise expectations that LPython output will be in general at least as fast as the equivalent C++ code. Users love Python because of its many productivity advantages: great tooling, easy syntax, and rich data structures like lists, dicts, sets, and arrays. Because any LPython program is also an ordinary Python program, all the tools -- debuggers and profilers, for instance -- just work. Then, LPython delivers run-time speeds, even with rich data structures at least as short as alternatives in most cases.