Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #104645 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100 |
| Last post | 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 314 — 29 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 08:36 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 01:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 21:02 -0800
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 14:13 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 15:40 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:24 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:05 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:40 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 22:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-13 21:08 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-12 20:20 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:52 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 08:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:10 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 09:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 00:57 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 23:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:10 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 19:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-13 22:12 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 17:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 17:53 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-14 20:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 18:39 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 20:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 11:52 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 14:58 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 18:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 07:57 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 22:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-13 22:26 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 08:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-13 16:25 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 10:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 00:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-15 00:50 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 01:15 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 01:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 12:35 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 02:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 13:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:41 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 00:07 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-21 18:47 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 03:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 16:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-23 17:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 10:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 21:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-23 13:41 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 14:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:38 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 13:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 09:33 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-24 16:16 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:37 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 05:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 19:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:02 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 11:06 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 03:22 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-25 22:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-26 13:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 20:49 -0600
Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 02:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-25 18:57 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 13:46 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:56 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-25 19:59 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 23:21 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:22 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 14:09 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 01:30 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-26 15:24 +0000
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 12:31 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 09:47 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 15:43 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-27 12:39 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:26 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-28 15:34 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 17:58 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 21:18 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-27 14:55 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-27 23:11 +0100
Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 11:54 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-27 18:40 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 19:26 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-29 01:54 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:09 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-29 12:23 +0300
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-29 12:31 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-30 11:05 +1100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 08:15 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 12:11 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-28 13:55 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 20:14 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-29 23:49 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-30 15:26 +0100
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 09:59 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 13:07 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-30 10:28 -0700
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-30 19:01 -0400
Re: Statements as expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-30 20:15 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-27 18:31 -0400
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:45 +1100
Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-28 12:24 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 12:38 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2016-03-27 21:59 -0500
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 14:29 +1100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-28 13:18 +0100
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-28 16:29 +0300
Re: Useless expressions [was Re: Undefined behaviour in C] Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-29 18:12 +1100
Re: Useless expressions Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-29 18:35 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:50 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 10:51 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:13 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:40 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:52 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-03-27 21:06 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Oscar Benjamin <oscar.j.benjamin@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 22:16 +0100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-26 10:37 +0200
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 08:23 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 18:13 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 22:30 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-26 21:39 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 23:03 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 10:43 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-26 16:44 -0400
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:02 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-26 22:54 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 08:58 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-27 13:44 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 13:52 +1100
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700
Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-27 00:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-25 21:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 00:50 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-25 01:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:28 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:04 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-24 16:34 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 14:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 10:53 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 15:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 15:25 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:30 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 19:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:44 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Matt Wheeler <m@funkyhat.org> - 2016-03-24 14:22 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 14:51 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-25 04:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-24 21:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-24 18:14 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 08:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 10:13 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-24 18:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-24 17:30 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> - 2016-03-23 10:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 22:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-23 08:40 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:24 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-24 10:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-23 20:12 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 11:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 01:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 23:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-23 20:26 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-23 16:09 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 03:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-21 17:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-21 09:20 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 02:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 19:57 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 13:18 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 18:59 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 12:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 11:05 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 12:59 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:13 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 13:46 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:02 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 15:07 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 02:18 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 14:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 07:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 01:31 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 12:14 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 12:21 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 13:43 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 09:23 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-23 17:07 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-22 04:23 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ian Foote <ian@feete.org> - 2016-03-22 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-22 07:45 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 22:55 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:15 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 23:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 14:52 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:00 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:15 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:24 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:32 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 00:38 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> - 2016-03-22 15:49 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Larry Hudson <orgnut@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-22 22:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-20 22:21 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:34 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 23:59 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 00:48 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:04 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:09 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:39 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 02:45 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 06:02 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 13:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2016-03-21 13:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 02:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 17:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-21 18:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2016-03-21 19:20 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:49 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 02:01 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:15 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-22 17:53 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-22 09:24 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 07:44 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 20:13 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 05:08 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-21 12:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> - 2016-03-21 06:12 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-21 19:50 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 00:18 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-22 00:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-22 01:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 13:49 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 13:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-24 22:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 08:48 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 11:08 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 11:27 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 13:51 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 13:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 16:38 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 03:56 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 17:54 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-12 20:07 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 18:30 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 20:39 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-13 13:16 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-14 14:01 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 13:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 14:43 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 16:21 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Michael Torrie <torriem@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:55 -0600
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-14 19:45 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 20:31 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Christian Gollwitzer <auriocus@gmx.de> - 2016-03-14 22:00 +0100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-14 21:17 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-14 21:00 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:27 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 01:35 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 13:12 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 08:25 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-15 09:20 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-15 12:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 23:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Rick Johnson <rantingrickjohnson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:17 -0700
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> - 2016-03-15 12:14 +0200
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:19 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-15 12:11 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 23:10 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-12 23:28 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 00:06 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 15:12 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 02:30 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-03-12 16:42 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-12 17:02 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> - 2016-03-13 12:20 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2016-03-13 01:32 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 13:03 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> - 2016-03-13 13:33 +1100
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2016-03-13 01:43 -0500
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) Gene Heskett <gheskett@wdtv.com> - 2016-03-13 09:14 -0400
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 19:03 +0000
Re: The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?) alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> - 2016-03-12 15:29 +0000
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 10:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.98.1458831197.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105621 |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, at 10:49, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 14:34, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > > You understand correctly, but it may be more natural in practice to > > write it this way: > > > > for k, item in enumerate(them): > > them[k] = f(item) > > > > I _think_ I might write it that way even when "f(item)" does not depend > > on the old value at all, but I don't expect to be in that situation. > > > > Yes, you're right. Usually the update is conditional on the existing > value. But my too-simple example would have had an unneeded item > variable. How about them[:] = map(f, them)?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnf80jk.19u.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #105614 |
On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> if you thought you needed to do that then most likely what you >> should actually be doing is re-writing your code so you no longer >> need to. However, you could do: >> >> L[:] = [0] * len(L) > > OK, but that's just building a new list as I've already mentioned. No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, that's what the "L[:]" bit means. Replacing the list object itself would be: L = [0] * len(L) > Or is the Pythonic way, when you want to change some elements of a list > to just build a new one that incorporates those changes? I think it would depend on how many elements you were changing and why. It doesn't come up all that often because of the ease in which Python functions can return multiple values but sometimes you might make a function which takes as a parameter a list which the function will mutate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd10b0$rpf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105626 |
On 24/03/2016 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> if you thought you needed to do that then most likely what you >>> should actually be doing is re-writing your code so you no longer >>> need to. However, you could do: >>> >>> L[:] = [0] * len(L) >> >> OK, but that's just building a new list as I've already mentioned. > > No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, Replace them with what, if not an entirely new list built from '[0]*len(L)'? (And which would briefly require twice the memory occupied by the old list, if I'm not mistaken.) >> Or is the Pythonic way, when you want to change some elements of a list >> to just build a new one that incorporates those changes? > > I think it would depend on how many elements you were changing and > why. It doesn't come up all that often because of the ease in which > Python functions can return multiple values but sometimes you might > make a function which takes as a parameter a list which the function > will mutate. Answering my own question, obviously changing some elements of a list has to be Pythonic, otherwise there wouldn't be lists, only non-mutable tuples. Although I was talking more within the context of a for-in loop. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnf81u3.19u.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #105627 |
On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 24/03/2016 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>> if you thought you needed to do that then most likely what you >>>> should actually be doing is re-writing your code so you no longer >>>> need to. However, you could do: >>>> >>>> L[:] = [0] * len(L) >>> >>> OK, but that's just building a new list as I've already mentioned. >> >> No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, > > Replace them with what, if not an entirely new list built from > '[0]*len(L)'? (And which would briefly require twice the memory occupied > by the old list, if I'm not mistaken.) It's replacing them with elements from an entirely new list, which is then discarded, and only the original list remains.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 11:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.100.1458833458.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105627 |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016, at 11:18, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote: > > No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, > > Replace them with what, if not an entirely new list built from > '[0]*len(L)'? Well, the *contents* of such a list, obviously. But the original list's contents are replaced, meaning that e.g. all other references to the list remain valid etc. > (And which would briefly require twice the memory occupied > by the old list, if I'm not mistaken.) Sure, *briefly*. And if you really care about that, you can do L[:] = (0 for x in L); or itertools.repeat(0, len(L)).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 04:56 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f42a57$0$1611$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105626 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:03 am, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>>> if you thought you needed to do that then most likely what you
>>> should actually be doing is re-writing your code so you no longer
>>> need to. However, you could do:
>>>
>>> L[:] = [0] * len(L)
>>
>> OK, but that's just building a new list as I've already mentioned.
>
> No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, that's what the
> "L[:]" bit means. Replacing the list object itself would be:
> L = [0] * len(L)
Yes it is: a new list is built, copied, then discarded.
Python builds the [0]*len(L) list first, then copies the elements from it
into the existing L (which in CPython is just a fast memcopy of a whole
bunch of pointers, plus a resize of L), then garbage collects the new list.
A *sufficiently smart* Python interpreter might be able to optimize that
even further, but since it's just copying pointers from one array to
another, it's already pretty quick.
I imagine that, if you had enough memory, a *sufficiently enormous* list
would actually be faster to modify in place using the Pascal-ish idiom:
for i in range(len(L)):
L[i] = 0
rather than building a temporary list and copying it. But I've never been
able to demonstrate that: no matter how big a list I created, it was always
faster to create a second one and then do slice assignment than to iterate
over it in a for loop changing each item in place.
This demonstrates that what logically ought to be more efficient (changing
values in place) is not necessarily *actually* more efficient.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnf8etu.19u.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #105642 |
On 2016-03-24, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 02:03 am, Jon Ribbens wrote: >> On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>>> if you thought you needed to do that then most likely what you >>>> should actually be doing is re-writing your code so you no longer >>>> need to. However, you could do: >>>> >>>> L[:] = [0] * len(L) >>> >>> OK, but that's just building a new list as I've already mentioned. >> >> No it isn't, it's replacing the elements in-place, that's what the >> "L[:]" bit means. Replacing the list object itself would be: >> L = [0] * len(L) > > Yes it is: a new list is built, copied, then discarded. Obviously (as already mentioned in my earlier reply). But the point is that it is not "just building a new list", as if that were true then L would not be pointing to the same list afterwards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 04:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f42762$0$1603$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105614 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:16 am, BartC wrote: > Or is the Pythonic way, when you want to change some elements of a list > to just build a new one that incorporates those changes? If you are only changing a few elements, or one at a time in some random order, then just change the element. Lists have random access, so you can easily change a single item: mylist[975] = "Hello world" But if you intend to change the entire list, *in general* it is faster to create a new list and copy the items into the old list. This is called *slicing*, to be specific, we're assigning to a "slice" corresponding to the entire list: mylist[:] = newlist But we don't have to assign to the entire list. We can assign to a sublist: mylist[2:102] = newlist and mylist will shrink or expand as needed. It is most convenient to use the list replication operator * to build the new list: [0, 1]*100 # like [0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, ... , 0, 1] or a list comprehension: [i**2 for i in range(100)] # like [0**2, 1**2, 2**2, 3**3, 4**2, ... 99**2] But most of the time you might not even care about modifying the list in place. Why spend the time to copy the new list over? Just reassign the variable to the new list. mylist = [i**2 for i in range(100)] The difference between mylist = ... and mylist[:] = ... comes down to what happens to other references. Suppose you have some object with a list attribute: instance.data = [1, 2, 3] Now we bind that list to another name (say, you pass it to a function, where the list gets assigned to a local variable): mylist = instance.data mylist and instance.data both "point to" the same underlying list object. Modifications to one will be seen by the other, as they both refer to the same list. If you do mylist[:] = ... that is an in-place modification of the list, and will be seen by all references to that list. But if you do mylist = ... that is a binding operation, and it reassigns the name "mylist" without touching the list object itself, or the instance.data reference. Analogy: if Barack Obama cuts himself shaving, the POTUS will have the same cut, because they are one and the same person (at least for now). But in another year or so, if Obama cuts himself, the POTUS will not notice, because the name POTUS will have been rebound to a different person. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Matt Wheeler <m@funkyhat.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.95.1458829434.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On 24 March 2016 at 14:04, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >On 24/03/2016 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> for i in range(len(mylist)-1, -1, 0): >> del mylist[i] > > That's wouldn't be I'd call clearing a list, more like destroying it > completely! Look more closely. The semantics of using the del keyword with an index are to delete that element. The list isn't destroyed, it just has each element removed in turn. The point is that one can just do `mylist.clear()` > How would you actually clear a list by traversing it (ie. not just building > a new one)? > > This doesn't work: > > for x in L: > x=0 > > as each x only refers to the value in each element of L, not the element > itself (like the pass-by-reference problem). > > I'd presumably have to do: > > for i in range(len(L)): > L[i]=0 That doesn't clear the list, that results in a list of the same length where every element is 0. That might sound like the same thing if you're used to a bounded array of ints, for example, but in Python it's very much not. -- Matt Wheeler http://funkyh.at
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.97.1458831149.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On 24/03/2016 14:22, Matt Wheeler wrote: > > The point is that one can just do `mylist.clear()` > Only in 3.3 and up. In Python 2.x you have to do it the old fashioned, long winded way. mylist[:] = [] -- My fellow Pythonistas, ask not what our language can do for you, ask what you can do for our language. Mark Lawrence
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 04:27 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f4236c$0$1615$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 01:04 am, BartC wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:24 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is how you're currently evaluating Python. Instead of starting
>>> with the most simple and obvious code
>>
>> One problem is that what counts as "simple and obvious" depends on what
>> you are used to. Coming from a background of Pascal, iterating over a
>> list like this:
>>
>> for i in range(len(mylist)):
>> print mylist[i]
>>
>> was both simple and obvious. It took me years to break myself of that
>> habit.
>>
>> Likewise clearing a list:
>>
>> for i in range(len(mylist)-1, -1, 0):
>> del mylist[i]
>
> That's wouldn't be I'd call clearing a list, more like destroying it
> completely!
No, the list still exists, and mylist (the name) is still bound to it. It is
just an empty list (length zero).
> How would you actually clear a list by traversing it (ie. not just
> building a new one)?
The two "right ways" of clearing a list (i.e. setting it to an empty list)
is to use slice assignment:
mylist[:] = []
or call the mylist.clear() method.
> This doesn't work:
>
> for x in L:
> x=0
>
> as each x only refers to the value in each element of L, not the element
> itself (like the pass-by-reference problem).
Correct, except I wouldn't call it a problem. That's just not how Python
semantics work. I only know of a handful of languages that support
pass-by-reference:
Pascal
C++
Visual Basic
Some other Basics (maybe? I'm not sure)
Algol (actually pass-by-name)
> I'd presumably have to do:
>
> for i in range(len(L)):
> L[i]=0
I wouldn't describe that as "clearing the list". It is merely setting the
existing values to some known quantity which happens to be zero. Why zero?
Why not None, or 99, or float("nan")? (Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical
question.)
In any case, I would expect that the most efficient way to set all the list
values to a particular value would be:
mylist[:] = [0]*len(mylist)
Let's find out. On my computer, using Python 3.3:
py> mylist = list(range(100000))
py> with Stopwatch():
... mylist[:] = [0]*len(mylist)
...
time taken: 0.005215 seconds
Compared to:
py> mylist = list(range(100000))
py> with Stopwatch():
... for i in range(len(mylist)):
... mylist[i] = 0
...
time taken: 0.037431 seconds
That's a difference of about an order of magnitude.
The Stopwatch function used for timing is very nearly the same as the recipe
posted here:
https://code.activestate.com/recipes/577896-benchmark-code-with-the-with-statement/
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 21:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.125.1458869048.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105639 |
On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 04:27:05 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info>
declaimed the following:
>Correct, except I wouldn't call it a problem. That's just not how Python
>semantics work. I only know of a handful of languages that support
>pass-by-reference:
>
Classical FORTRAN for everything (though VMS added overrides to permit
descriptors and accessing either the passed address AS the value or passing
a value AS the address).
Ada depending upon the type of object and the in/out qualifiers (I
think it even permits value/return semantics rather than reference
semantics for IN OUT parameters -- arrays, strings, and records tend to use
by-ref, base numerics using by-val if IN, and by-ref for OUT.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 18:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <A8WIy.76805$Vw.45538@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:04:53 +0000, BartC wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 02:24 pm, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>>
>>> This is how you're currently evaluating Python. Instead of starting
>>> with the most simple and obvious code
>>
>> One problem is that what counts as "simple and obvious" depends on what
>> you are used to. Coming from a background of Pascal, iterating over a
>> list like this:
>>
>> for i in range(len(mylist)):
>> print mylist[i]
>>
>> was both simple and obvious. It took me years to break myself of that
>> habit.
>>
>> Likewise clearing a list:
>>
>> for i in range(len(mylist)-1, -1, 0):
>> del mylist[i]
>
> That's wouldn't be I'd call clearing a list, more like destroying it
> completely!
>
> How would you actually clear a list by traversing it (ie. not just
> building a new one)?
>
> This doesn't work:
>
> for x in L:
> x=0
>
> as each x only refers to the value in each element of L, not the element
> itself (like the pass-by-reference problem).
>
> I'd presumably have to do:
>
> for i in range(len(L)):
> L[i]=0
close
I would suggest the following pastern is more "Pythonic" although
possibly overkill for this scenario
a=[1,2,3,4,5]
for i,x in enumerate(a):
a[i]=None
--
Practice yourself what you preach.
-- Titus Maccius Plautus
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 08:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96c17017-a658-4c0b-bbd5-b9d2ed982e1f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105609 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > You know what is missing from this conversation? > > For one of Bart's critics to actually show faster code. > > There's plenty of people telling him off for writing unpythonic and slow > code, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that Python is > faster than his results show. As I mentioned before, I'm happy to explain the fuller Python way to write code, but I don't think Bart wants to learn it, because he is focused on a different goal than, "write real Python code the best possible way." Here, for example, is a real lexer for JavaScript that I wrote: https://bitbucket.org/ned/jslex/src It makes heavy use of regexes to go fast. I don't have benchmarks against other implementations unfortunately. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd13fo$8pj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105629 |
On 24/03/2016 15:30, Ned Batchelder wrote: > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> You know what is missing from this conversation? >> >> For one of Bart's critics to actually show faster code. >> >> There's plenty of people telling him off for writing unpythonic and slow >> code, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that Python is >> faster than his results show. > > As I mentioned before, I'm happy to explain the fuller Python way to > write code, but I don't think Bart wants to learn it, because he is > focused on a different goal than, "write real Python code the best > possible way." > > Here, for example, is a real lexer for JavaScript that I wrote: > https://bitbucket.org/ned/jslex/src > Thanks for that. I don't have any JS to throw at it, but it seems happy with any bits of source code or even just text. Using your short driver program (with the prints commented out), and tested with 'bible.txt' as input (ie. mostly English words), then your JS lexer was roughly half the speed of the Python version I linked to last week (with the if-elif chains and working with strings). Both tested with 2.7.x. Using PyPy speeded both versions up about 3 times. Your code however is more beautiful than mine... > It makes heavy use of regexes to go fast. I don't have benchmarks > against other implementations unfortunately. (A rough lines-per-second figure would give a general idea.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 10:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4444d120-f81c-4c22-818c-97be33ffeac4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105632 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 12:12:55 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 15:30, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >> You know what is missing from this conversation? > >> > >> For one of Bart's critics to actually show faster code. > >> > >> There's plenty of people telling him off for writing unpythonic and slow > >> code, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that Python is > >> faster than his results show. > > > > As I mentioned before, I'm happy to explain the fuller Python way to > > write code, but I don't think Bart wants to learn it, because he is > > focused on a different goal than, "write real Python code the best > > possible way." > > > > Here, for example, is a real lexer for JavaScript that I wrote: > > https://bitbucket.org/ned/jslex/src > > > > Thanks for that. > > I don't have any JS to throw at it, but it seems happy with any bits of > source code or even just text. > > Using your short driver program (with the prints commented out), and > tested with 'bible.txt' as input (ie. mostly English words), then your > JS lexer was roughly half the speed of the Python version I linked to > last week (with the if-elif chains and working with strings). I have tried to find your code, but cannot find in the forest of this thread. Can you provide a link to it online? I would be very interested to understand the difference in performance. Thanks, --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd19vu$4sg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105638 |
On 24/03/2016 17:13, Ned Batchelder wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 12:12:55 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 15:30, Ned Batchelder wrote:
>>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>>> You know what is missing from this conversation?
>>>>
>>>> For one of Bart's critics to actually show faster code.
>>>>
>>>> There's plenty of people telling him off for writing unpythonic and slow
>>>> code, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that Python is
>>>> faster than his results show.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned before, I'm happy to explain the fuller Python way to
>>> write code, but I don't think Bart wants to learn it, because he is
>>> focused on a different goal than, "write real Python code the best
>>> possible way."
>>>
>>> Here, for example, is a real lexer for JavaScript that I wrote:
>>> https://bitbucket.org/ned/jslex/src
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for that.
>>
>> I don't have any JS to throw at it, but it seems happy with any bits of
>> source code or even just text.
>>
>> Using your short driver program (with the prints commented out), and
>> tested with 'bible.txt' as input (ie. mostly English words), then your
>> JS lexer was roughly half the speed of the Python version I linked to
>> last week (with the if-elif chains and working with strings).
>
> I have tried to find your code, but cannot find in the forest of this thread.
> Can you provide a link to it online? I would be very interested to understand
> the difference in performance.
This the version I used today:
http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ
(others I've experimented with aren't much faster or slower.)
Testing it with lots of C source, the difference is narrower.
(Note that the two will be doing different jobs; one or two things are
not complete on mine, such as the final calculation for floating point
literals. And the number of tokens read is a bit different. But then
they are expecting a different language.
Also, I only tested with large monolithic files (to make measuring easier).
In terms of getting through the same amount of input however, I think
the comparisons aren't too far off.)
This is the test code I used for your JS lexer:
"""A main program for jslex."""
import sys
from jslex import JsLexer
def show_js_tokens(jstext, ws=False):
line = 1
lexer = JsLexer()
n=0
for name, tok in lexer.lex(jstext):
n+=1
# print_it = True
# if name == 'ws' and not ws:
# print_it = False
# if print_it:
# print "%4d %s: %r" % (line, name, tok)
line += tok.count("\n")
print line,n
if __name__ == '__main__':
file="bigpy"
# file="sqlite"
# file="bible.txt"
show_js_tokens(open(file).read())
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 17:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9b04020c-aa0f-4d6b-bfd3-4a1009caacac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105643 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 2:03:58 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 17:13, Ned Batchelder wrote: > > On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 12:12:55 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > >> On 24/03/2016 15:30, Ned Batchelder wrote: > >>> On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 9:51:11 AM UTC-4, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > >>>> You know what is missing from this conversation? > >>>> > >>>> For one of Bart's critics to actually show faster code. > >>>> > >>>> There's plenty of people telling him off for writing unpythonic and slow > >>>> code, but I haven't seen anyone actually demonstrating that Python is > >>>> faster than his results show. > >>> > >>> As I mentioned before, I'm happy to explain the fuller Python way to > >>> write code, but I don't think Bart wants to learn it, because he is > >>> focused on a different goal than, "write real Python code the best > >>> possible way." > >>> > >>> Here, for example, is a real lexer for JavaScript that I wrote: > >>> https://bitbucket.org/ned/jslex/src > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for that. > >> > >> I don't have any JS to throw at it, but it seems happy with any bits of > >> source code or even just text. > >> > >> Using your short driver program (with the prints commented out), and > >> tested with 'bible.txt' as input (ie. mostly English words), then your > >> JS lexer was roughly half the speed of the Python version I linked to > >> last week (with the if-elif chains and working with strings). > > > > I have tried to find your code, but cannot find in the forest of this thread. > > Can you provide a link to it online? I would be very interested to understand > > the difference in performance. > > This the version I used today: > > http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ > Thanks. It is faster than mine. The lesson I learned is, if you (I) make regexes too fancy, they are slower than the low-tech way. :) I suspect there is a way to use the re module more efficiently, but I don't have the time at the moment to figure out how. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.46.1458730632.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On 23/03/2016 10:48, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> Someone could be interested in cars, mechanics and performance without >> wanting to know the most Pythonic way to get from Kings Cross to Heathrow. > > But if I complain that the trek across four blocks of London cost me > ninety minutes and my train ticket (which I then had to get replaced), > you would blame it on me getting lost, rather than accepting my > assertion that London's slow to get around. And if you said "hey, take > a bus or a taxi next time", and I next time walked and got lost again, > you would rightly call me a fool. And if I then had the audacity to > say that London's streets are badly designed, because I looked at them > and even without knowing what sort of traffic goes on them, I can tell > that those are slow roads... you'd have very little respect for my > statements about London. It wouldn't matter if I'm the world's > greatest expert on hiking from Adelaide to Perth; it wouldn't matter > how many nuances of Nullarbor sand I'm familiar with, nor how best to > find drinking water there. I clearly know nothing about London, and my > complaints about the city should be taken with a grain of salt, until > such time as I put in the effort to get to know YOUR city YOUR way. > > (Events depicted in this work are entirely fictional and have no basis > in reality. Really. Really truly. Anyway, I only got lost once.) Well if you tried to walk from King's Cross to Heathrow and only got lost once, I'm very impressed. I'm impressed if you did it at all! TJG
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 22:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.50.1458732503.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:57 PM, Tim Golden <mail@timgolden.me.uk> wrote: > On 23/03/2016 10:48, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >>> Someone could be interested in cars, mechanics and performance without >>> wanting to know the most Pythonic way to get from Kings Cross to Heathrow. >> >> But if I complain that the trek across four blocks of London cost me >> ninety minutes and my train ticket (which I then had to get replaced), >> you would blame it on me getting lost, rather than accepting my >> assertion that London's slow to get around. And if you said "hey, take >> a bus or a taxi next time", and I next time walked and got lost again, >> you would rightly call me a fool. And if I then had the audacity to >> say that London's streets are badly designed, because I looked at them >> and even without knowing what sort of traffic goes on them, I can tell >> that those are slow roads... you'd have very little respect for my >> statements about London. It wouldn't matter if I'm the world's >> greatest expert on hiking from Adelaide to Perth; it wouldn't matter >> how many nuances of Nullarbor sand I'm familiar with, nor how best to >> find drinking water there. I clearly know nothing about London, and my >> complaints about the city should be taken with a grain of salt, until >> such time as I put in the effort to get to know YOUR city YOUR way. >> >> (Events depicted in this work are entirely fictional and have no basis >> in reality. Really. Really truly. Anyway, I only got lost once.) > > Well if you tried to walk from King's Cross to Heathrow and only got > lost once, I'm very impressed. I'm impressed if you did it at all! I was walking something like four blocks, from one station to another (we flew in to one of the airports and needed to take a train to Manchester, and that involved trains on different lines). It was a short trip and would have been an easy one, had I consulted a map beforehand instead of thinking "Oh, it's just straight there and then there and there, no problem!". Obviously London's fault for being unintuitive. And for having railway lines that don't meet at the same stations (well, maybe that's a legit complaint, but the city has to worry about backward compatibility too). ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web