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 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 23:03 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.34.1458993796.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105740 |
On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:39 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > It is an accident of history that Python's first and major implementation > happens to be written in C. (Although its use as a glue language, allowing > people to safely use libraries written in C, probably played a role in > ensuring Python's success.) Your parenthesis is more important than you may be giving it credit for, so IMO C is more than "an accident of history" in Python's success. There's a massive network effect surrounding programming languages, particularly glue languages. Suppose I were to develop a brand-new library of awesomeness, distributed as a Java .class file. Python (via Jython) could now use that, but many MANY other languages could not, ergo my library would languish. But if I design my library to have C bindings instead, Java programs can't use it, but any language that is able to connect to C code can. Conversely, if I'm developing a new language, I can look at the available C libraries and say "hey, look, access to C bindings gives me GUI toolkits, bignums, etc, etc, etc", so it's worth my while to connect to that. C may itself be immaterial, but the network surrounding it has been, and continues to be. Thanks to CPython, Python can be easily compiled for any CPU or OS that has the standard C build tools ported to it; that's a huge dependency, but it's a dependency of *so* many other programs that it's a high priority for OS developers. Python's success comes partly through leveraging that portability and power. The same could have been accomplished with any other language at the center of the network, but the same wasn't accomplished with any other language at the center of the network. It was done with C. Of course, that doesn't mean that C's *behaviour* has anything to do with Python's *behaviour*. That's a completely separate point. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 10:43 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <2e1ce88d-fae2-4aa0-ace9-4faa4878459b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105740 |
On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:09:41 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:30 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > For one thing its good to remember that we wouldn't be here without python > > Python wouldn't be what it is without CPython > > There is nothing about Python that relies on the C standard being as it is. Um lets see... There is this nice piece of OO called the exception hierarchy: https://docs.python.org/2/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy So we have BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ EnvironmentError ⊇ IOError At this point it would have been completely natural for IOError to continue subclassing to all the typical errors - File not found - No Space left on device etc etc But instead we have an integer errno and we must inquire what that is to figure out what the exact IOError was Are you suggesting that python's errno module: https://docs.python.org/2/library/errno.html And C's http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/errno.3.html are coincidentally related? > There are Python implementations that are not written in C or C++: > > Jython (Java) > IronPython (C# for .Net or Mono) > CLPython (Lisp) > Berp (Haskell) As best as I know - Java is written in C - Lisp is written in C - Haskell is written in C Notice a certain pattern? Yeah some of them may be self-hosting eg haskell (ghc) is written in ghc Where did the first bootstrap start from? And if you think those levels of distance render the C origin irrelevant, here is a famous Turing award lecture: https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf by (surprise-surprise!) the creator of C-Unix ... shows how to make a Trojan and ends with The moral is obvious. You can't trust code that you did not totally create yourself. (Especially code from companies that employ people like me.) No amount of source-level verification or scrutiny will protect you from using untrusted code. So... Ahem... C is unsafe... Right... Prefer C++ ??<wink>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 16:44 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.55.1459025093.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105775 |
On 3/26/2016 1:43 PM, Rustom Mody wrote:
> There is this nice piece of OO called the exception hierarchy:
> https://docs.python.org/2/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy
https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy
> BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ EnvironmentError ⊇ IOError
BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ ⊇ OSError
> At this point it would have been completely natural for IOError to continue
> subclassing to all the typical errors
> - File not found
> - No Space left on device
Which is why we now have
+-- OSError
| +-- BlockingIOError
| +-- ChildProcessError
| +-- ConnectionError
| | +-- BrokenPipeError
| | +-- ConnectionAbortedError
| | +-- ConnectionRefusedError
| | +-- ConnectionResetError
| +-- FileExistsError
| +-- FileNotFoundError
| +-- InterruptedError
| +-- IsADirectoryError
| +-- NotADirectoryError
| +-- PermissionError
| +-- ProcessLookupError
| +-- TimeoutError
'no space' is MemoryError, but that is a hardward, not OS matter.
> But instead we have an integer errno and we must inquire what that is to
> figure out what the exact IOError was
This statement is obsolete, but explains why the above was added in 3.3.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 22:02 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <777df6e3-3e5c-4c59-913e-c9447d20173e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105783 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 2:15:22 AM UTC+5:30, Terry Reedy wrote: > On 3/26/2016 1:43 PM, Rustom Mody wrote: > > > There is this nice piece of OO called the exception hierarchy: > > > https://docs.python.org/2/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy > > https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy > > > BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ EnvironmentError ⊇ IOError > > BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ ⊇ OSError > > > At this point it would have been completely natural for IOError to continue > > subclassing to all the typical errors > > - File not found > > - No Space left on device > > Which is why we now have > > +-- OSError > | +-- BlockingIOError > | +-- ChildProcessError > | +-- ConnectionError > | | +-- BrokenPipeError > | | +-- ConnectionAbortedError > | | +-- ConnectionRefusedError > | | +-- ConnectionResetError > | +-- FileExistsError > | +-- FileNotFoundError > | +-- InterruptedError > | +-- IsADirectoryError > | +-- NotADirectoryError > | +-- PermissionError > | +-- ProcessLookupError > | +-- TimeoutError > > 'no space' is MemoryError, but that is a hardward, not OS matter. > > > But instead we have an integer errno and we must inquire what that is to > > figure out what the exact IOError was > > This statement is obsolete, but explains why the above was added in 3.3. Thanks Terry for the correction I had an impression of seeing some discussion on this and resolved not to incorporate. Glad to be wrong on that However my general point is hardly about errno but about the lineage/legacy of python. And this is only strengthened by your correction Thanks to American politics being in the air I learnt a new word the other day: 'birther'. My point is python is 'birthed' in Unix-land
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 22:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <aa9a145a-8d87-4fef-810b-235228b05179@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105814 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 10:32:34 AM UTC+5:30, Rustom Mody wrote: > I had an impression of seeing some discussion on this and resolved not > to incorporate. Meaning: I think I remember something about a resolution -- after some debate -- not to OO-ify the C/Unix errno system
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 08:58 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.56.1459029525.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105775 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 4:43 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:09:41 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:30 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: >> >> > For one thing its good to remember that we wouldn't be here without python >> > Python wouldn't be what it is without CPython >> >> There is nothing about Python that relies on the C standard being as it is. > > Um lets see... > There is this nice piece of OO called the exception hierarchy: > https://docs.python.org/2/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy > > So we have > BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ EnvironmentError ⊇ IOError > At this point it would have been completely natural for IOError to continue > subclassing to all the typical errors > - File not found > - No Space left on device > etc etc > > But instead we have an integer errno and we must inquire what that is to > figure out what the exact IOError was > Are you suggesting that python's errno module: > https://docs.python.org/2/library/errno.html > And C's http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/errno.3.html > are coincidentally related? You're reading documentation that's aimed at C programmers for the same reason as above - aiming at C makes it accessible to the most people. But errno is not inherently bound to C; if I were to build a language interpreter in Fortran, I could make errno available to it. What you're looking at isn't so much a C thing as a Linux thing; Python makes available the Linux error code as a means of disambiguating similar errors. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 13:44 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <56f748fa$0$1612$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105775 |
On Sun, 27 Mar 2016 04:43 am, Rustom Mody wrote: > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 4:09:41 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 04:30 pm, Rustom Mody wrote: >> >> > For one thing its good to remember that we wouldn't be here without >> > python Python wouldn't be what it is without CPython >> >> There is nothing about Python that relies on the C standard being as it >> is. > > Um lets see... > There is this nice piece of OO called the exception hierarchy: > https://docs.python.org/2/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy > > So we have > BaseException ⊇ Exception ⊇ EnvironmentError ⊇ IOError > At this point it would have been completely natural for IOError to > continue subclassing to all the typical errors > - File not found > - No Space left on device > etc etc You cannot possibly be serious. Are you *really* trying to argue that it is because of the C standard that the Python exception hierarchy isn't sufficiently nuanced for your taste? The air conditioner in my car struggles on hot days. The compressor of the air condition was designed by an engineer using software running on a computer running Windows. Windows is written in C or C++. Therefore the C standard is responsible for my car being hot. In any case, you might like to consider the Python 3 exception hierarchy before trying to defend your proposition: https://docs.python.org/3/library/exceptions.html#exception-hierarchy > But instead we have an integer errno and we must inquire what that is to > figure out what the exact IOError was > Are you suggesting that python's errno module: > https://docs.python.org/2/library/errno.html > And C's http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/errno.3.html > are coincidentally related? Of course it's not a coincidence. The documentation explicitly states that the names and values of the constants are taken from the C header file errno.h. So what? If I somehow convince Guido to add a list of standard Go error codes into the standard library, does that mean that the Python language is dependent on Go? >> There are Python implementations that are not written in C or C++: >> >> Jython (Java) >> IronPython (C# for .Net or Mono) >> CLPython (Lisp) >> Berp (Haskell) > > As best as I know > - Java is written in C > - Lisp is written in C > - Haskell is written in C To my knowledge, all four of Java, C#, Lisp and Haskell are self-hosted languages. Even if a particular (say) Haskell compiler happens to have been written in C, it could have been written using Rust, D, Ada, Forth, PL/I, Modula 2, Java, Pascal, assembly language, etc. without changing anything about Haskell. You could replace "C" with any systems language such as "Fortran", and the Python language would be absolutely identical. You could even write the C ABI using Fortran. (CPython can call Fortran libraries even though it is written in C -- why couldn't a Fortran implementation call C libraries? There's no reason it couldn't -- Nim, for example, has a foreign function interface capable of calling C code even though the compiler was written in Pascal.) I'm not saying that the amount of effort required would be the same. I'm not saying that there are no influences in the design and practice of the Python interpreter due to C -- obviously that would be silly, Guido is a C programmer, of course he has been influenced by C. But many of those influences are "Don't do what C does!". Clearly C is important in the real world, and for practical and historical reasons Python was written in C. But those reasons aren't fundamental to the Python language, in the way that compatibility with C is fundamental to C++. If Donald Trump takes over the world and bans C, insisting that it be replaced with a new language of his own design called "T", the *implementation* of CPython would have to change, but the *interface*, the language itself, won't have to change one iota. > Notice a certain pattern? > Yeah some of them may be self-hosting > eg haskell (ghc) is written in ghc > Where did the first bootstrap start from? Where did the first C compiler start from? C is not some magical language that exists at the very heart of all programming. Programming existed before it, and even today there are corners of the computing world which don't rely on C, not even indirectly. The development of C started in 1969, and it is generally agreed to have first been more-or-less complete in 1972. The famous K&R C book didn't come out until 1978, and C wasn't standarized until 1989. There were many years of high-level computing before C was even a concept in Dennis Richie's mind. The first Fortran compiler wasn't written in C. Due to the ubiquity of C in 2016, it may be *convenient* to write your first compiler for a language in C, but it is not *necessary*. The first Nim compiler was written in Pascal, and if Nim isn't self-hosting, that doesn't mean it couldn't be. [...] > So... Ahem... C is unsafe... Right... Prefer C++ ??<wink> No, of course not. C++ is exactly as unsafe as C, because it includes the same concept of Undefined Behaviour (which, I stress, is not the same as implementation-specific behaviour, or undocumented behaviour), and C++ is (mostly) backwards compatible with C. If I were to get involved with modern systems programming, I would start with D, or perhaps Rust. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 13:52 +1100 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <mailman.68.1459047182.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105801 |
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> wrote: > If [anyone] takes over the world and bans C, insisting that it be > replaced with a new language of his own design called "T", the > *implementation* of CPython would have to change, but the *interface*, the > language itself, won't have to change one iota. Nah. We'd just be rebels and rename "gcc" to "t" and keep right on going :) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-26 23:34 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <87lh545sz9.fsf@nightsong.com> |
| In reply to | #105775 |
Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> writes: > eg haskell (ghc) is written in ghc > Where did the first bootstrap start from? The very earliest Haskell implementation was written in Lisp.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-27 00:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: Undefined behaviour in C [was Re: The Cost of Dynamism] |
| Message-ID | <af84c028-b438-44be-8dc4-e9e293c9a5c6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105822 |
On Sunday, March 27, 2016 at 12:05:01 PM UTC+5:30, Paul Rubin wrote: > Rustom Mody writes: > > eg haskell (ghc) is written in ghc > > Where did the first bootstrap start from? > > The very earliest Haskell implementation was written in Lisp. Ummm So you found a little chink in my argument -- Ok :-) Yeah I remember that Paul Hudak of Yale (now deceased) was working on Haskell in Yale-scheme (T). I did not know it ever materialized. However in pragmatic terms I dont think the argument changes; viz. If you take any technology today (and it may not be remotely connected to computers eg the chip that controls the car, the credit card's ATM network layer etc etc, you will invariably find C. All that you need to do is to work out the transitive-closure of the implemented-in/interpreted-by relation. So a C program uses C at 0 removes A CPython program uses C at at 1 A PyPy program at 2 (or 3 or 4 not likely more than that). On a funny note: I was teaching APL and one of the students came and asked me: Did C exist in 1960? No Why? Well You said APL was implemented in 1960 and APL is implemented in C Nothing to match the power of syllogism :-) So yes one can in *principle* have a completely C-less world Just like one can in principle compute the square-root of Graham's number Likewise a cost of a billion dollars de-C-ification is probably a gross underestimate: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock's_law
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.11.1458940109.28225.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105649 |
On 25/03/2016 02:49, Michael Torrie wrote: > > I've been trying to follow things on this thread, and I understand a bit > about Pythonic ideomatic style and I know what Python is really good at > and some of what it's not so good at, but it seems like one of Bart's > original contentions was that given a certain problem, coded in a > non-pythonic way, got slower under Python 3 than it was under Python 2 > (if I recall correctly). In other words a performance regression. > Somehow this seems to have gotten lost in the squabble over how one > should use Python. > Python 3 is slower, period. The devs are trying to grab some of that back. I'd still say that the additions in Python 3, many of which were backported to 2.6/7, were worth this regression. -- 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 00:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f3f09a$0$1595$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105585 |
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]
Fortunately I didn't need to do that very often.
The point is that you, like most of the prominent posters here, have many
years of experience in programming in Python. How do you expect Bart to
come up with the same "simple and obvious" code as you?
> and refining from there, you're
> starting from a whole lot of preconceived ideas about what's "fast" or
> "slow", and assuming/expecting that they'll all still be valid.
Bart has done a much better job than most people at trying different things,
despite the hostility he's been receiving. I don't think he's fully in
the "dynamic scripting/glue/programming language" headspace, and I still
have some disagreements with some of his opinions, but he's actually shown
himself to be quite open to concrete suggestions made.
Bart, if you're reading, can I suggest that any future benchmarks should be
relatively constrained and short, so it is easier to read and understand
them, and suggest improvements.
> Many
> of them won't be, yet you still persist in doing things based on what
> you expect to be the case (because of what's fast/slow in C or some
> other language). We've explained this a number of times, and one by
> one, we're coming to the conclusion that you not only don't understand
> Python, you don't *want* to understand Python; and until you actually
> understand how the language works, timing stats are dubious.
>
> Do you understand why people aren't taking your results very seriously?
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.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 01:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.94.1458828111.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105609 |
On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:50 AM, Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> 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] > > > Fortunately I didn't need to do that very often. > > The point is that you, like most of the prominent posters here, have many > years of experience in programming in Python. How do you expect Bart to > come up with the same "simple and obvious" code as you? I don't, until it's pointed out. At that point, someone who respects the language will at least pay *some* heed to the changed recommendations; what we're seeing here is that he continues to use C idioms and then complain that Python is slow. I don't expect him to magically know what Python idioms are, but when the thread has gone on this long and he's still showing the same style of code, that's when I start to agree with Ben that he's not paying heed to Pythonic vs non-Pythonic. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0tcr$fu8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105611 |
On 24/03/2016 14:01, Chris Angelico wrote: > I don't, until it's pointed out. At that point, someone who respects > the language will at least pay *some* heed to the changed > recommendations; what we're seeing here is that he continues to use C > idioms and then complain that Python is slow. I don't expect him to > magically know what Python idioms are, but when the thread has gone on > this long and he's still showing the same style of code, that's when I > start to agree with Ben that he's not paying heed to Pythonic vs > non-Pythonic. Have a look at the short thread 'Rotation' in comp.programming starting 4-Jan-2016. (Possible link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.programming/rotation/comp.programming/aQh4n2HGtaU/sSbcyjqfEQAJ) Someone posts an algorithm in C++, I post a version in my language, someone else calls that a 'blub' solution and offers a much shorter version in /their/ language. I point out that their solution just uses a built-in to do the work. It by-passes the question of the algorithm, which was the point of the thread. I also point out that I also gave a one-line version in my language. What you're trying to say I guess is that such a one-liner would be Pythonic. And what I'm saying is that that would defeat the object of what I'm trying to do. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alister <alister.ware@ntlworld.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 18:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <DnWIy.76818$Vw.73016@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #105617 |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 14:28:32 +0000, BartC wrote: > On 24/03/2016 14:01, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> I don't, until it's pointed out. At that point, someone who respects >> the language will at least pay *some* heed to the changed >> recommendations; what we're seeing here is that he continues to use C >> idioms and then complain that Python is slow. I don't expect him to >> magically know what Python idioms are, but when the thread has gone on >> this long and he's still showing the same style of code, that's when I >> start to agree with Ben that he's not paying heed to Pythonic vs >> non-Pythonic. > > Have a look at the short thread 'Rotation' in comp.programming starting > 4-Jan-2016. > > (Possible link: > https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.programming/rotation/ comp.programming/aQh4n2HGtaU/sSbcyjqfEQAJ) > > Someone posts an algorithm in C++, I post a version in my language, > someone else calls that a 'blub' solution and offers a much shorter > version in /their/ language. > > I point out that their solution just uses a built-in to do the work. It > by-passes the question of the algorithm, which was the point of the > thread. I also point out that I also gave a one-line version in my > language. > > What you're trying to say I guess is that such a one-liner would be > Pythonic. And what I'm saying is that that would defeat the object of > what I'm trying to do. if you're trying to demonstrate the deficiency of one algorithm over another then you should be testing them in the same language. If you are trying to compare one language to another then the task should be written in the most efficient means for then language. language "A" has a builtin function "X" where as language "B" does not, that just shows that "A" is better suited to the task than "B", "B" probably has other areas where "A" is not so good. otherwise why not wright in assembler/machine code which has to be the most efficient language (because all the others eventually fall back to executing these processor instructions anyway -- We're constantly being bombarded by insulting and humiliating music, which people are making for you the way they make those Wonder Bread products. Just as food can be bad for your system, music can be bad for your spirtual and emotional feelings. It might taste good or clever, but in the long run, it's not going to do anything for you. -- Bob Dylan, "LA Times", September 5, 1984
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0s0d$aft$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105609 |
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
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnnf7tc7.19u.jon+usenet@wintry.unequivocal.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #105612 |
On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 24/03/2016 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> 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 That's kind've a weird thing to want to do; 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)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0sle$d64$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105613 |
On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: > On 2016-03-24, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> On 24/03/2016 13:50, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> 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 > > That's kind've a weird thing to want to do; The thing I'm trying to demonstrate is changing an element of a list that you are traversing in a loop. Not necessarily set all elements to the same value. 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. 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? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jussi Piitulainen <jussi.piitulainen@helsinki.fi> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 16:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <lf5oaa47xne.fsf@ling.helsinki.fi> |
| In reply to | #105614 |
BartC writes:
> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2016-03-24, BartC wrote:
>>> I'd presumably have to do:
>>>
>>> for i in range(len(L)):
>>> L[i]=0
>>
>> That's kind've a weird thing to want to do;
>
> The thing I'm trying to demonstrate is changing an element of a list
> that you are traversing in a loop. Not necessarily set all elements to
> the same value.
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0ujl$jlo$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105619 |
On 24/03/2016 14:34, Jussi Piitulainen wrote: > BartC writes: >> On 24/03/2016 14:08, Jon Ribbens wrote: >>> On 2016-03-24, BartC wrote: >>>> I'd presumably have to do: >>>> >>>> for i in range(len(L)): >>>> L[i]=0 >>> >>> That's kind've a weird thing to want to do; >> >> The thing I'm trying to demonstrate is changing an element of a list >> that you are traversing in a loop. Not necessarily set all elements to >> the same value. > > 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. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web