Re: Python is not bad ;-)

From	Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk>
Subject	Re: Python is not bad ;-)
Date	2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
References	(9 earlier) <mi2b49$pip$1@dont-email.me> <mailman.9.1430565706.12865.python-list@python.org> <mi2cjc$uq2$1@dont-email.me> <87383fkxy0.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> <CAB1GNpSqvkwVJ+fjx3pv1DGh595+0VVKF4C_voOPq4VymSA_tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.python
Message-ID	<mailman.21.1430587348.12865.python-list@python.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

On 02/05/2015 14:50, Joonas Liik wrote:

[top posting fixed]

>
> On 2 May 2015 at 14:42, Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> wrote:
>
>> Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de>:
>>
>>> That's why I still think it is a microoptimization, which helps only
>>> in some specific cases.
>>
>> It isn't done for performance. It's done to avoid a stack overflow
>> exception.
>>
>>
>> Marko
>> --
>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
>>
> I agree, stack overflow is literally the main issue that ive run in to
> (tree traversal)
> I've yet to refactor recursion to iterative for speed, but i have done so
> to avoid hitting the stack size limit.
>
> Tree traversal and similar problems in particular lend themselves well to
> recursion and are not quite as trivial to do in an iterative fashion.
>
> I've also found myself constructing an ad-hoc trampoline at least once just
> to sneak past the stack limit.
> (probably very evil but it worked and it wasn't nearly as ugly as it sounds
> like so ill live with it..)
>
>

Please do not top post on this list.  Some of the threads get very long 
and are difficult if not impossible to follow when replies are top 
posted.  Interspersing your replies is the preferred method here, 
failing that simply reply at the bottom, thanks.

-- 
My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask
what you can do for our language.

Mark Lawrence

Thread

Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 09:07 +0200
  Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2015-04-30 19:10 +1000
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-04-30 13:16 +0300
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 20:52 +1000
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:30 +0200
        Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 17:03 +1000
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-01 09:47 +0200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-01 19:56 +0200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Gregory Ewing <greg.ewing@canterbury.ac.nz> - 2015-05-02 19:44 +1200
          Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 10:26 +0200
            Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:10 +0300
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 19:25 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 12:58 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:22 -0400
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 20:42 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:07 +0200
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 21:21 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-05-02 13:32 +0200
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2015-05-02 14:42 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:45 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2015-05-03 01:55 +1000
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 16:50 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Joonas Liik <liik.joonas@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 18:53 +0300
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:00 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 11:17 -0600
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2015-05-02 18:22 +0100
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 12:29 +0200
            Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 11:33 +0200
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2015-05-02 06:35 -0400
                Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-05-02 13:12 +0200
              Re: Python is not bad ;-) Ian Kelly <ian.g.kelly@gmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:31 -0600
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2015-05-01 15:56 +1000
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 13:10 +0200
  Re: Python is not bad ;-) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 08:03 -0600
    Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 18:11 +0200
      Re: Python is not bad ;-) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2015-04-30 19:59 +0200
        Re: Python is not bad ;-) Cecil Westerhof <Cecil@decebal.nl> - 2015-04-30 22:05 +0200

csiph-web