Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:Python': 0.04; 'skip': 0.04; 'suppose': 0.05; 'skipping': 0.07; 'something,': 0.07; "it'd": 0.09; 'manipulation': 0.09; 'precision': 0.09; 'subject:tutorial': 0.09; 'sun,': 0.09; 'looked': 0.10; 'pm,': 0.11; 'wrote:': 0.14; 'library': 0.15; 'computation': 0.16; 'conversions.': 0.16; "ibm's": 0.16; '24,': 0.19; 'simpler': 0.19; 'obviously': 0.20; 'seems': 0.21; '(which': 0.21; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.22; "aren't": 0.22; 'convert': 0.22; '(and': 0.22; "haven't": 0.23; 'received:209.85.214.174': 0.23; 'received:mail- iw0-f174.google.com': 0.23; 'memory': 0.24; 'chris': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.28; 'testing': 0.28; 'string': 0.29; 'all.': 0.30; 'seem': 0.30; 'decimal': 0.31; 'strings,': 0.31; 'does': 0.31; "can't": 0.31; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.32; 'source': 0.32; 'done': 0.32; "i've": 0.33; 'things': 0.33; 'done.': 0.35; 'open': 0.35; 'point': 0.35; 'think': 0.36; 'received:209.85': 0.37; 'apr': 0.38; 'faster': 0.38; 'steven': 0.38; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'but': 0.38; 'received:209.85.214': 0.39; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'where': 0.39; 'received:209': 0.39; 'how': 0.39; "it's": 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'might': 0.40; 'choose': 0.61; '2011': 0.62; 'cost': 0.63; 'heavy': 0.69; 'subject:online': 0.77; '256': 0.84; 'empirical': 0.84; 'floats.': 0.84; 'inferior': 0.84; 'doubling': 0.91; 'task,': 0.91 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=BgSXGdnuB72qb8MpiEyV5stb3guOp4khJLMTChTwfp0=; b=kjD9tXCORJghUiUBkqJAyJPBkY8W0F74FNFdg3NAPtLrYxqItVq6EN1lQASxiGTXPF pgc8KG+IVe4K+u9HW+0GKzlbEZjCVK6dMp6dlHfqGxaq4OtJD2mlFUIMQXvblXvZLFRa 2wIbcdeAoS3EUDlB32nRh8s8ptlG89+ASBCFI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=BI8MXkWT9v/r3KiztESstg9uT2/geIkvvZ8+xa6GxKVhjqcylHjRXpth4e90DyW6T5 yyJF2CSAvm1c5RXEf/ihEYGm01Ydg76fTvR6cLoqIh7gftbag/3pVu6dOrn+Lw5vPXps EzVoffOfEPTqwsyaqx/T8xwN4+4YyImSWMkgc= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4db3db90$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> References: <506eb5e4-4f29-473a-8d47-2082322e005e@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com> <201104211710.19587.akabaila@pcug.org.au> <4db3720a$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <4db3db90$0$29978$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 18:21:01 +1000 Subject: Re: learnpython.org - an online interactive Python tutorial From: Chris Angelico To: python-list@python.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 22 NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166 X-Trace: 1303633264 news.xs4all.nl 41110 [::ffff:82.94.164.166]:59146 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:3944 On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > suppose an implementation might choose to trade off memory for time, > skipping string -> bignum conversations at the cost of doubling the > memory requirements. But even if I grant you bignums, you have to do the > same for floats. Re-implementing the entire floating point library is not > a trivial task, especially if you want to support arbitrary precision > floats. Or just arbitrary precision decimal strings, which aren't "floats" at all. But to be honest, I've never looked at any implementation of REXX (and the open source implementations do seem to be inferior to IBM's OS/2 implementation, I think - haven't done any empirical testing though), so I can't say how it's done. But it seems to my small understanding that it'd be simpler to just work with the base 10 string than to convert it to base 256 or base 2**32 or something, just because you skip the conversions. Obviously this makes REXX a poor choice for heavy HEAVY computation, but it's potentially faster for things that involve a little computation and a lot of string manipulation (which is where REXX does well). Chris Angelico