On the surface, the comparison is rather weak because it is comparing loops in a dynamic language to optimized, low-level vector operations. Which is, you know, "whoa, low-level hand-optimized routines are faster than Python", or, as I said, weak.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that, but comparing Python's interpreted, non-optimized speed to low level OMG optimized code is exactly the point of the article.
The comparison is very useful for anyone looking to increase the speed of code they've written in Python. This points out the limits of what can be achieved in pure Python, and where you'd need to look to improve things, even if it means rewriting the whole thing in a different language. From what you've said, it sounds like you were expecting an article on something different.
> The comparison is very useful for anyone looking to increase the speed of code they've written in Python.
Python has numerous mechanisms that are much more efficient than the solution in this artice, like zip, map and filter functions, as well as the excellent built-in libraries like itertools and functools.
I'm not sure where you're trying to go with that, but comparing Python's interpreted, non-optimized speed to low level OMG optimized code is exactly the point of the article.
The comparison is very useful for anyone looking to increase the speed of code they've written in Python. This points out the limits of what can be achieved in pure Python, and where you'd need to look to improve things, even if it means rewriting the whole thing in a different language. From what you've said, it sounds like you were expecting an article on something different.