We Keep Coding

LinkedList on python and c++ [duplicate]

Why does Python seem slower, on average, than C/C++? I learned Python as my first programming language, but I've only just started with C and already I feel I can see a clear difference.

Python is a higher level language than C, which means it abstracts the details of the computer from you - memory management, pointers, etc, and allows you to write programs in a way which is closer to how humans think.
It is true that C code usually runs 10 to 100 times faster than Python code if you measure only the execution time. However if you also include the development time Python often beats C. For many projects the development time is far more critical than the run time performance. Longer development time converts directly into extra costs, fewer features and slower time to market.
Internally the reason that Python code executes more slowly is because code is interpreted at runtime instead of being compiled to native code at compile time.
Other interpreted languages such as Java bytecode and .NET bytecode run faster than Python because the standard distributions include a JIT compiler that compiles bytecode to native code at runtime. The reason why CPython doesn't have a JIT compiler already is because the dynamic nature of Python makes it difficult to write one. There is work in progress to write a faster Python runtime so you should expect the performance gap to be reduced in the future, but it will probably be a while before the standard Python distribution includes a powerful JIT compiler.

CPython is particularly slow because it has no Just in Time optimizer (since it's the reference implementation and chooses simplicity over performance in certain cases). Unladen Swallow is a project to add an LLVM-backed JIT into CPython, and achieves massive speedups. It's possible that Jython and IronPython are much faster than CPython as well as they are backed by heavily optimized virtual machines (JVM and .NET CLR).
One thing that will arguably leave Python slower however, is that it's dynamically typed, and there is tons of lookup for each attribute access.
For instance calling f on an object A will cause possible lookups in __dict__, calls to __getattr__, etc, then finally call __call__ on the callable object f.
With respect to dynamic typing, there are many optimizations that can be done if you know what type of data you are dealing with. For example in Java or C, if you have a straight array of integers you want to sum, the final assembly code can be as simple as fetching the value at the index i, adding it to the accumulator, and then incrementing i.
In Python, this is very hard to make code this optimal. Say you have a list subclass object containing ints. Before even adding any, Python must call list.__getitem__(i), then add that to the "accumulator" by calling accumulator.__add__(n), then repeat. Tons of alternative lookups can happen here because another thread may have altered for example the __getitem__ method, the dict of the list instance, or the dict of the class, between calls to add or getitem. Even finding the accumulator and list (and any variable you're using) in the local namespace causes a dict lookup. This same overhead applies when using any user defined object, although for some built-in types, it's somewhat mitigated.
It's also worth noting, that the primitive types such as bigint (int in Python 3, long in Python 2.x), list, set, dict, etc, etc, are what people use a lot in Python. There are tons of built in operations on these objects that are already optimized enough. For example, for the example above, you'd just call sum(list) instead of using an accumulator and index. Sticking to these, and a bit of number crunching with int/float/complex, you will generally not have speed issues, and if you do, there is probably a small time critical unit (a SHA2 digest function, for example) that you can simply move out to C (or Java code, in Jython). The fact is, that when you code C or C++, you are going to waste lots of time doing things that you can do in a few seconds/lines of Python code. I'd say the tradeoff is always worth it except for cases where you are doing something like embedded or real time programming and can't afford it.

Compilation vs interpretation isn't important here: Python is compiled, and it's a tiny part of the runtime cost for any non-trivial program.
The primary costs are: the lack of an integer type which corresponds to native integers (making all integer operations vastly more expensive), the lack of static typing (which makes resolution of methods more difficult, and means that the types of values must be checked at runtime), and the lack of unboxed values (which reduce memory usage, and can avoid a level of indirection).
Not that any of these things aren't possible or can't be made more efficient in Python, but the choice has been made to favor programmer convenience and flexibility, and language cleanness over runtime speed. Some of these costs may be overcome by clever JIT compilation, but the benefits Python provides will always come at some cost.

The difference between python and C is the usual difference between an interpreted (bytecode) and compiled (to native) language. Personally, I don't really see python as slow, it manages just fine. If you try to use it outside of its realm, of course, it will be slower. But for that, you can write C extensions for python, which puts time-critical algorithms in native code, making it way faster.

Python is typically implemented as a scripting language. That means it goes through an interpreter which means it translates code on the fly to the machine language rather than having the executable all in machine language from the beginning. As a result, it has to pay the cost of translating code in addition to executing it. This is true even of CPython even though it compiles to bytecode which is closer to the machine language and therefore can be translated faster. With Python also comes some very useful runtime features like dynamic typing, but such things typically cannot be implemented even on the most efficient implementations without heavy runtime costs.
If you are doing very processor-intensive work like writing shaders, it's not uncommon for Python to be somewhere around 200 times slower than C++. If you use CPython, that time can be cut in half but it's still nowhere near as fast. With all those runtmie goodies comes a price. There are plenty of benchmarks to show this and here's a particularly good one. As admitted on the front page, the benchmarks are flawed. They are all submitted by users trying their best to write efficient code in the language of their choice, but it gives you a good general idea.
I recommend you try mixing the two together if you are concerned about efficiency: then you can get the best of both worlds. I'm primarily a C++ programmer but I think a lot of people tend to code too much of the mundane, high-level code in C++ when it's just a nuisance to do so (compile times as just one example). Mixing a scripting language with an efficient language like C/C++ which is closer to the metal is really the way to go to balance programmer efficiency (productivity) with processing efficiency.

Comparing C/C++ to Python is not a fair comparison. Like comparing a F1 race car with a utility truck.
What is surprising is how fast Python is in comparison to its peers of other dynamic languages. While the methodology is often considered flawed, look at The Computer Language Benchmark Game to see relative language speed on similar algorithms.
The comparison to Perl, Ruby, and C# are more 'fair'

Aside from the answers already posted, one thing is Python's ability to change things during runtime, which you can't do in other languages such as C. You can add member functions to classes as you go.
Also, Pythons' dynamic nature makes it impossible to say what type of parameters will be passed to a function, which in turn makes optimizing a whole lot harder.
RPython seems to be a way of getting around the optimization problem.
Still, it'll probably won't be near the performance of C for number-crunching and the like.

C and C++ compile to native code- that is, they run directly on the CPU. Python is an interpreted language, which means that the Python code you write must go through many, many stages of abstraction before it can become executable machine code.

Python is a high-level programming language. Here is how a python script runs:
The python source code is first compiled into Byte Code. Yes, you heard me right! Though Python is an interpreted language, it first gets compiled into byte code. This byte code is then interpreted and executed by the Python Virtual Machine(PVM).
This compilation and execution are what make Python slower than other low-level languages such as C/C++. In languages such as C/C++, the source code is compiled into binary code which can be directly executed by the CPU thus making their execution efficient than that of Python.

This answer applies to python3. Most people do not know that a JIT-like compile occurs whenever you use the import statement. CPython will search for the imported source file (.py), take notice of the modification date, then look for compiled-to-bytecode file (.pyc) in a subfolder named "_ _ pycache _ _" (dunder pycache dunder). If everything matches then your program will use that bytecode file until something changes (you change the source file or upgrade Python)
But this never happens with the main program which is usually started from a BASH shell, interactively or via. Here is an example:
#!/usr/bin/python3
# title : /var/www/cgi-bin/name2.py
# author: Neil Rieck
# edit : 2019-10-19
# ==================
import name3 # name3.py will be cache-checked and/or compiled
import name4 # name4.py will be cache-checked and/or compiled
import name5 # name5.py will be cache-checked and/or compiled
#
def main():
#
# code that uses the imported libraries goes here
#
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()
#
Once executed, the compiled output code will be discarded. However, your main python program will be compiled if you start up via an import statement like so:
#!/usr/bin/python3
# title : /var/www/cgi-bin/name1
# author: Neil Rieck
# edit : 2019-10-19
# ==================
import name2 # name2.py will be cache-checked and/or compiled
#name2.main() #
And now for the caveats:
if you were testing code interactively in the Apache area, your compiled file might be saved with privs that Apache can't read (or write on a recompile)
some claim that the subfolder "_ _ pycache _ _" (dunder pycache dunder) needs to be available in the Apache config
will SELinux allow CPython to write to subfolder (this was a problem in CentOS-7.5 but I believe a patch has been made available)
One last point. You can access the compiler yourself, generate the pyc files, then change the protection bits as a workaround to any of the caveats I've listed. Here are two examples:
method #1
=========
python3
import py_compile
py_compile("name1.py")
exit()
method #2
=========
python3 -m py_compile name1.py

python is interpreted language is not complied and its not get combined with CPU hardware
but I have a solutions for increase python as a faster programing language
1.Use python3 for run and code python command like Ubuntu or any Linux distro use python3 main.py and update regularly your python so you python3 framework modules and libraries i will suggest use pip 3.
2.Use [Numba][1] python framework with JIT compiler this framework use for data visualization but you can use for any program this framework use GPU acceleration of your program.
3.Use [Profiler optimizing][1] so this use for see with function or syntax for bit longer or faster also have use full to change syntax as a faster for python its very god and work full so this give a with function or syntax using much more time execution of code.
4.Use multi threading so making multiprocessing of program for python so use CPU cores and threads so this make your code much more faster.
5.Using C,C#,C++ increasing python much more faster i think its called parallel programing use like a [cpython][1] .
6.Debug your code for test your code to make not bug in your code so then you will get little bit your code faster also have one more thing Application logging is for debugging code.
and them some low things that makes your code faster:
1.Know the basic data structures for using good syntax use make best code.
2.make a best code have Reduce memory footprinting.
3.Use builtin functions and libraries.
4.Move calculations outside the loop.
5.keep your code base small.
so using this thing then get your code much more faster yes so using this python not a slow programing language

Python optimization through bytecode

When it comes to optimization of Python code (or any code), it often ends up coming down to profiling to optimize bottlenecks or slow functions. However, when optimizing these areas of code, are there any use cases for using pure Python bytecode inline? I know you can do this through the use of the compile built-in function and compiler module.

... are there any use cases for using pure Python bytecode inline?
Yes. Sometimes you can handroll a little faster code than Python normally generates on its own.
Also, you can gain access to the loop induction variables for list comprehensions.
Here are some links to get you started: https://www.google.com/search?q=python+bytecode+hacks
If you would like to make the bytecode manipulations programmatically, here is an optimization recipe that shows how to go about it: Decorator for BindingConstants at compile time
That said, if you care about speed, the simplest speed-up is often to run pypy instead of cpython if your application allows it.

No. The source code is compiled to bytecode only once, when the module is first loaded. The bytecode is what is interpreted at runtime. So even if you could put bytecode inline into your source, it would at most only affect the startup time of the program by reducing the amount of time Python spent converting the source code into bytecode. It wouldn't actually change how fast that code runs. For instance, a "pure bytecode" version of a loop that runs 1000 times wouldn't run any faster than the same loop written in Python source code. See this similar question and also this one.
compile and compiler exist to let you dynamically create new executable source code from strings while the program is running. This isn't for a performance benefit, it's just because there's no other way to do it. When you run a Python program, Python compiles its source code to bytecode. But if you want to dynamically create new functions that aren't directly present in the source code (e.g., by mixing and matching code fragments, or allowing users to type in code while the program is running), you need a way to compile them on the fly, and that's what compile is for. (This is actually not a common need, so those functions aren't used that often.)

Counting number of symbols in Python script

I have a Telit module which runs [Python 1.5.2+] (http://www.roundsolutions.com/techdocs/python/Easy_Script_Python_r13.pdf)!. There are certain restrictions in the number of variable, module and method names I can use (< 500), the size of each variable (16k) and amount of RAM (~ 1MB). Refer pg 113&114 for details. I would like to know how to get the number of symbols being generated, size in RAM of each variable, memory usage (stack and heap usage).
I need something similar to a map file that gets generated with gcc after the linking process which shows me each constant / variable, symbol, its address and size allocated.

Python is an interpreted and dynamically-typed language, so generating that kind of output is very difficult, if it's even possible. I'd imagine that the only reasonable way to get this information is to profile your code on the target interpreter.
If you're looking for a true memory map, I doubt such a tool exists since Python doesn't go through the same kind of compilation process as C or C++. Since everything is initialized and allocated at runtime as the program is parsed and interpreted, there's nothing to say that one interpreter will behave the same as another, especially in a case such as this where you're running on such a different architecture. As a result, there's nothing to say that your objects will be created in the same locations or even with the same overall memory structure.
If you're just trying to determine memory footprint, you can do some manual checking with sys.getsizeof(object, [default]) provided that it is supported with Telit's libs. I don't think they're using a straight implementation of CPython. Even still, this doesn't always work and with raise a TypeError when an object's size cannot be determined if you don't specify the default parameter.
You might also get some interesting results by studying the output of the dis module's bytecode disassembly, but that assumes that dis works on your interpreter, and that your interpreter is actually implemented as a VM.
If you just want a list of symbols, take a look at this recipe. It uses reflection to dump a list of symbols.
Good manual testing is key here. Your best bet is to set up the module's CMUX (COM port MUXing), and watch the console output. You'll know very quickly if you start running out of memory.

This post makes me recall my pain once with Telit GM862-GPS modules. My code was exactly at the point that the number of variables, strings, etc added up to the limit. Of course, I didn't know this fact by then. I added one innocent line and my program did not work any more. I drove me really crazy for two days until I look at the datasheet to find this fact.
What you are looking for might not have a good answer because the Python interpreter is not a full fledged version. What I did was to use the same local variable names as many as possible. Also I deleted doc strings for functions (those count too) and replace with #comments.
In the end, I want to say that this module is good for small applications. The python interpreter does not support threads or interrupts so your program must be a super loop. When your application gets bigger, each iteration will take longer. Eventually, you might want to switch to a faster platform.

Will Python be faster if I put commonly called code into separate methods or files?

I thought I once read on SO that Python will compile and run slightly more quickly if commonly called code is placed into methods or separate files. Does putting Python code in methods have an advantage over separate files or vice versa? Could someone explain why this is? I'd assume it has to do with memory allocation and garbage collection or something.

It doesn't matter. Don't structure your program around code speed; structure it around coder speed. If you write something in Python and it's too slow, find the bottleneck with cProfile and speed it up. How do you speed it up? You try things and profile them. In general, function call overhead in critical loops is high. Byte compiling your code takes a very small amount of time and only needs to be done once.

No. Regardless of where you put your code, it has to be parsed once and compiled if necessary. Distinction between putting code in methods or different files might have an insignificant performance difference, but you shouldn't worry about it.
About the only language right now that you have to worry about structuring "right" is Javascript. Because it has to be downloaded from net to client's computer. That's why there are so many compressors and obfuscators for it. Stuff like this isn't done with Python because it's not needed.

Two things:
Code in separate modules is compiled into bytecode at first runtime and saved as a precompiled .pyc file, so it doesn't have to be recompiled at the next run as long as the source hasn't been modified since. This might result in a small performance advantage, but only at program startup.
Also, Python stores variables etc. a bit more efficiently if they are placed inside functions instead of at the top level of a file. But I don't think that's what you're referring to here, is it?

What is the use of Python's basic optimizations mode? (python -O)

Python has a flag -O that you can execute the interpreter with. The option will generate "optimized" bytecode (written to .pyo files), and given twice, it will discard docstrings. From Python's man page:
-O Turn on basic optimizations. This changes the filename extension
for compiled (bytecode) files from .pyc to .pyo. Given twice,
causes docstrings to be discarded.
This option's two major features as I see it are:
Strip all assert statements. This trades defense against corrupt program state for speed. But don't you need a ton of assert statements for this to make a difference? Do you have any code where this is worthwhile (and sane?)
Strip all docstrings. In what application is the memory usage so critical, that this is a win? Why not push everything into modules written in C?
What is the use of this option?
Does it have a real-world value?

Another use for the -O flag is that the value of the __debug__ builtin variable is set to False.
So, basically, your code can have a lot of "debugging" paths like:
if __debug__:
# output all your favourite debugging information
# and then more
which, when running under -O, won't even be included as bytecode in the .pyo file; a poor man's C-ish #ifdef.
Remember that docstrings are being dropped only when the flag is -OO.

On stripping assert statements: this is a standard option in the C world, where many people believe part of the definition of ASSERT is that it doesn't run in production code. Whether stripping them out or not makes a difference depends less on how many asserts there are than on how much work those asserts do:
def foo(x):
assert x in huge_global_computation_to_check_all_possible_x_values()
# ok, go ahead and use x...
Most asserts are not like that, of course, but it's important to remember that you can do stuff like that.
As for stripping docstrings, it does seem like a quaint holdover from a simpler time, though I guess there are memory-constrained environments where it could make a difference.

If you have assertions in frequently called code (e.g. in an inner loop), stripping them can certainly make a difference. Extreme example:
$ python -c 'import timeit;print timeit.repeat("assert True")'
[0.088717937469482422, 0.088625192642211914, 0.088654994964599609]
$ python -O -c 'import timeit;print timeit.repeat("assert True")'
[0.029736995697021484, 0.029587030410766602, 0.029623985290527344]
In real scenarios, savings will usually be much less.
Stripping the docstrings might reduce the size of your code, and hence your working set.
In many cases, the performance impact will be negligible, but as always with optimizations, the only way to be sure is to measure.

I have never encountered a good reason to use -O. I have always assumed its main purpose is in case at some point in the future some meaningful optimization is added.

But don't you need a ton of assert statements for this to make a difference? Do you have any code where this is worthwhile (and sane?)
As an example, I have a piece of code that gets paths between nodes in a graph. I have an assert statement at the end of the function to check that the path doesn't contain duplicates:
assert not any(a == b for a, b in zip(path, path[1:]))
I like the peace of mind and clarity that this simple statement gives during development. In production, the code processes some big graphs and this single line can take up to 66% of the run time. Running with -O therefore gives a significant speed-up.

I imagine that the heaviest users of -O are py2exe py2app and similar.
I've personally never found a use for -O directly.

You've pretty much figured it out: It does practically nothing at all. You're almost never going to see speed or memory gains, unless you're severely hurting for RAM.