Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!not-for-mail From: Ian Kelly Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Subject: Re: How to waste computer memory? Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 01:00:05 -0600 Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: <265377f4-741d-4aa2-9338-239f56f8bc57@googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: news.uni-berlin.de 6aldMa5kFEjTK10T2Qz0uAecy5PI1k1T9/Sg1+n5wWjA== Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.001 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'python,': 0.02; 'received:209.85.223': 0.03; 'indexing': 0.07; 'utf-8': 0.07; 'subject:How': 0.09; 'complaining': 0.09; 'ignoring': 0.09; 'sake': 0.09; 'unicode,': 0.09; 'python': 0.10; 'encoding': 0.15; 'properly': 0.15; 'thu,': 0.15; '*you*': 0.16; '2016': 0.16; '[1].': 0.16; 'bugs.': 0.16; 'operation.': 0.16; 'received:io': 0.16; 'received:psf.io': 0.16; 'wherein': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.16; 'memory': 0.17; 'first.': 0.18; 'pointed': 0.18; 'thanks.': 0.18; 'language': 0.19; 'seems': 0.23; 'demonstrate': 0.23; "python's": 0.23; 'unlike': 0.23; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.24; 'example': 0.26; '(which': 0.26; 'points': 0.27; 'message- id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'actual': 0.28; 'asked': 0.29; 'becomes': 0.30; "can't": 0.32; '[1]': 0.32; "he's": 0.33; 'instead,': 0.33; 'limitations': 0.33; 'purposes,': 0.33; 'languages': 0.34; 'handle': 0.34; 'list': 0.34; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'unicode': 0.35; 'should': 0.36; 'received:209.85': 0.36; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'pm,': 0.36; 'subject:: ': 0.37; 'agree': 0.37; 'johnson': 0.37; 'seem': 0.37; 'starting': 0.37; 'version': 0.38; 'received:209': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.40; 'provide': 0.61; 'show': 0.62; 'strange': 0.63; 'necessarily': 0.63; 'mar': 0.65; 'real-world': 0.66; '"just': 0.84; 'smp': 0.84; 'to:name:python': 0.84; 'notion': 0.91; 'rick': 0.93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=i9dGFuLJi/gV94z2JWoWYGy0PhQ/Nrwi6C1HZQMGCGc=; b=yBUvIp7saUAtDxkiCvEp2VdNWvRx6VUAQiowD74hs+lufMvjdyvQecefEcdfTAGGr0 R81+LX+0bowOy/Czc7OsFbk8Bg6mM0TPmZiJ7okoRoP2KW2TAiYPPA2v5jBiQUwOv8TY oRDqMv08Eh71XzCCKgV2EJbWInZXe+iYslMnz+uLLLdJoLxJqTBzwplrvuJIQxWpuOCM LDuFwiBOnuUUtZ0eWwxhDLfsxxYed245Wa7EN1tAtC9PhiU9/Gk2ymhep6GPFmfJgi7W v2l7SgSlS0hfCaGkuWRF3vL+vMqI8Ueg3E0fjsx2QC88+rXWNmd9VnV+HecOwZO20Xqp bxvQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=i9dGFuLJi/gV94z2JWoWYGy0PhQ/Nrwi6C1HZQMGCGc=; b=j49RrfORCa4M/KQSEuLmYDqs2nacWkXWd2sh99Tm7rxGe22UTL9EvW+J30SU7P2cXj DO6UcjcF9Plk11eaeSyhoT8R7IL3qPJBdwiPOnGQkJ0+Atw5xeKU4ZAIGksBmi/YNiiF FmaI2ajzoaSPrtLkGko9tnVnyR0ZygvVceqhExECP1lQImkGp6gHJA1dRm45ZEchKUsY KCP+8sMehepoIeiZ5XLflmSfpCr0CyK+OfaRXEcJweXfi7irBwFMIvHmRSik5Zk51Zoo sBtEZ+34jG5TaRFZ+twI7GjPlRZ5F9d6y8lMLcce9nSQDOpEVB9koZnBxs5GIFdBKJUn LhAA== X-Gm-Message-State: AD7BkJLBn9wwAKjdzyoehdk3sigVSHVEFyoJmfJk9jJx5N5a2nF/YvYz7NZUb9tLsYTuvF2TkaryYkiYQ8q/7g== X-Received: by 10.107.11.10 with SMTP id v10mr13584249ioi.188.1458284445101; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 00:00:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <265377f4-741d-4aa2-9338-239f56f8bc57@googlegroups.com> 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:105182 On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Rick Johnson wrote: > In the event that i change my mind about Unicode, and/or for > the sake of others, who may want to know, please provide a > list of languages that *YOU* think handle Unicode better than > Python, starting with the best first. Thanks. jmf has been asked this before, and as I recall he seems to feel that UTF-8 should be used for all purposes, ignoring the limitations of that encoding such as that indexing becomes a O(n) operation. He has pointed at Go as an example of a language wherein Unicode "just works", although I think that others do not necessarily agree [1]. He also seems to have a strange notion of the meaning of the word "buggy". He frequently uses that word to describe the Python 3.3 Unicode implementation, although he can't seem to demonstrate any actual bugs. Instead, he points at cherry-picked micro-benchmarks that show Python's old "narrow" Unicode implementation (which did not properly support SMP characters, unlike the "wide" implementation which was a much greater memory hog than the version he's now complaining about) outperforming the PEP-393 implementation while completely ignoring any real-world benchmarks. [1] https://coderwall.com/p/k7zvyg/dealing-with-unicode-in-go