Path: csiph.com!news.swapon.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Ethan Furman Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: sobering observation, python vs. perl Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:21:51 -0700 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de XTiduFJBhFLoGQMSfJwxiAsBh75owPuGw90Smfz7PZ3A== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.012 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.98; '*S*': 0.00; 'difference,': 0.07; 'from:addr:ethan': 0.09; 'from:addr:stoneleaf.us': 0.09; 'from:name:ethan furman': 0.09; 'message-id:@stoneleaf.us': 0.09; 'res': 0.09; 'subject:python': 0.14; 'thu,': 0.15; '2016': 0.16; 'jumped': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'tempted': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'string': 0.17; 'posted': 0.21; 'saying': 0.22; 'aspect': 0.22; 'am,': 0.23; "python's": 0.23; 'tim': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'header:User-Agent:1': 0.26; 'rest': 0.26; 'compare': 0.27; '-0500,': 0.29; 'chase': 0.29; '~ethan~': 0.29; 'code': 0.30; "i'd": 0.31; 'avoiding': 0.33; 'file': 0.34; 'could': 0.35; 'something': 0.35; 'but': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'two': 0.37; 'times.': 0.38; 'test': 0.39; 'data': 0.39; 'well.': 0.40; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'charset:windows-1252': 0.62; 'great': 0.63; 'mar': 0.65; 'offer': 0.66; 'results': 0.66; 'subject:. ': 0.67; 'smith': 0.76; 'strengths': 0.84; 'try,': 0.84; 'results,': 0.91 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 In-Reply-To: X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:105112 On 03/17/2016 09:08 AM, Charles T. Smith wrote: > On Thu, 17 Mar 2016 10:52:30 -0500, Tim Chase wrote: >> Not saying this will make a great deal of difference, but these two >> items jumped out at me. I'd even be tempted to just use string >> manipulations for the isready aspect as well. Something like >> (untested) > > well, I don't want to forgo REs in order to have python's numbers be better.... The issue is not avoiding REs, but using Python's strengths and idioms. Write the code in Python's style, get the same results, then compare the times. If you posted the data file and exact results the rest of us could try, but as it is all we can do is offer ideas and you have test them. -- ~Ethan~