Howdy, Stranger!
We are about to switch to a new forum software. Until then we have removed the registration on this forum.
Categories
- All Categories 25.7K
- Announcements & Guidelines 13
- Common Questions 30
- Using Processing 22.1K
- Programming Questions 12.2K
- Questions about Code 6.4K
- How To... 4.2K
- Hello Processing 72
- GLSL / Shaders 292
- Library Questions 4K
- Hardware, Integration & Other Languages 2.7K
- Kinect 668
- Arduino 1K
- Raspberry PI 188
- Questions about Modes 2K
- Android Mode 1.3K
- JavaScript Mode 413
- Python Mode 205
- Questions about Tools 100
- Espanol 5
- Developing Processing 548
- Create & Announce Libraries 211
- Create & Announce Modes 19
- Create & Announce Tools 29
- Summer of Code 2018 93
- Rails Girls Summer of Code 2017 3
- Summer of Code 2017 49
- Summer of Code 2016 4
- Summer of Code 2015 40
- Summer of Code 2014 22
- p5.js 1.6K
- p5.js Programming Questions 947
- p5.js Library Questions 315
- p5.js Development Questions 31
- General 1.4K
- Events & Opportunities 288
- General Discussion 365
In this Discussion
- JonathanFeinberg November 2015
It looks like that dealing with image pixels is extremely slower in Python mode, is it?
I am trying to implement metaballs, like this script: https://processing.org/discourse/beta/num_1270296593.html
But it always works superslow I rewrote metaballs concept deeply now, but It looks like that dealing with Image pixels (or maybe even looping in general) works way to slower in processing.py. Is it correct and is there any chance to change it, or it will always be a limitation of the mode?
Also, am I right that P2D works slower in python mode than the default one (or is it actually a defaut one?)
Tagged:
Answers
Yes, you're quite right. Anything that has a loop in Python is going to be much, much slower than the equivalent loop in a Java sketch.
For more advanced hackers who want the convenience of Python Mode, but still need speed for an inner pixel-manipulation loop, I wrote this brief tutorial.