Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.python
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2012 07:19:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1420.1348653316.27098.python-list@python.org>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=62.203.91.202; posting-account=ung4FAoAAAC46zhHJ0Nsnuox7M5gDvs_
References: <mailman.1294.1348560867.27098.python-list@python.org> <mailman.1333.1348581385.27098.python-list@python.org> <k3ssuq$78m$1@reader1.panix.com> <cc2771fd-0b2b-4721-9ae0-657bc722ebad@googlegroups.com> <ef917cfd-43a5-4620-a9b4-1c6934624bc4@googlegroups.com> <5062ad83$0$29997$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <693ac61b-b1d3-4192-9e50-5166fd119278@googlegroups.com> <mailman.1420.1348653316.27098.python-list@python.org>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: Article on the future of Python
From: wxjmfauth@gmail.com
To: comp.lang.python@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: python-list@python.org
Precedence: list
Message-ID: <mailman.1437.1348669201.27098.python-list@python.org>
Lines: 67
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:30206

Le mercredi 26 septembre 2012 11:55:16 UTC+2, Chris Angelico a =E9crit=A0:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 7:31 PM,  <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> > you are correct. But the price you pay for this is extremely
>=20
> > high. Now, practically all characters are affected, espacially
>=20
> > those *in* the Basic *** Multilingual*** Plane, these characters
>=20
> > used by non "American" user (No offense here, I just use this
>=20
> > word for ascii/latin-1).
>=20
> >
>=20
> > I'm ready to be considered as an idiot, but I'm not blind.
>=20
> > As soon as I tested these characters, Py3.3 performs really
>=20
> > badly. It seems to me it is legitimate to consider, there
>=20
> > is a serious problem here.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> We've been over this thread. The only reason you're counting 3.3 as
>=20
> worse is because you're comparing against a narrow build of Python
>=20
> 3.2. Narrow builds are **BUGGY** and this needed to be resolved.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> When you compare against a wide build, semantics of 3.2 and 3.3 are
>=20
> identical, and then - and ONLY then - can you sanely compare
>=20
> performance. And 3.3 stacks up much better.
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ChrisA

No, I'm comparing Py33 with Py32 narrow build [*].
And I am not a Python newbie. Others in a previous
discussion have pointed "bad" numbers and even
TR wrote something like "I'm baffled (?) by these
numbers".

I took a look at the test suites, unfortunatelly
they are mainly testing "special cases", something
like one of the 3 internal representations, eg
"latin-1".

I can also add to this, that it is not only one
of the internal representation which may be
suspect (it is probably different now, Py32/Py33) but
also the "switch" between these representations
which is causing troubles.

[*] I have not the knowledge to compile a wide
build and I do not wish to spend my time in something
that will be most probably a nightmare for me.
I'm reacting like a "normal" Python user.

jmf