Improving representative benchmarks for typing ecosystem

まず、issue に記載されている 3 つのベンチマーク領域と、そこからリンクされている既存の pydantic ベンチマークを確認します。これらの選択肢を現在の pyperformance ベンチマークスイートと比較し、どのケースとベンチマークプログラムを含めるべきかを明確にします。代表的なベンチマーク範囲について合意し、選択したベンチマークが upstream に取り込まれたら完了です。

Due to a current lack of representative macrobenchmarks, it is very difficult to decide on whether complex accelerators for some parts of typing are worth implementing in the future. Hence, I'm trying to upstream some benchmarks into pyperformance.

IMO, there are three main areas:

1. Performance of static type checkers implemented in Python (e.g. mypy). (Fixed by #102)
2. Performance of programs using types at runtime (e.g. pydantic, attrs, etc.).
3. Runtime overhead of typed code vs fully untyped code.

For case 2, I plan to use one of pydantic's benchmarks here https://github.com/samuelcolvin/pydantic/tree/master/benchmarks, installed without compiled binaries.

Case 3 is very tricky because there are so many ways to use typing. I don't know how often people use certain features, whether they type-hint inside tight loops, etc. So I'm struggling to find a good benchmark. An idea: grabbing one of the existing pyperformance benchmarks, fully type-hinting it, then comparing the performance delta may work.

CC @JelleZijlstra, I would greatly appreciate hearing your opinion on this (especially for case 3). Maybe I can post this on typing-sig too if I need more help.

Afterword:
All 3 cases benefit from general CPython optimizations. But usually only 3. benefits greatly from typing module-only optimizations (with 1. maybe not improving much if at all, depending on implementation).