Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #44756 > unrolled thread

Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

Contents

  Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Ignoramus16992 <ignoramus16992@NOSPAM.16992.invalid> - 2013-05-05 12:11 -0500
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Stephan Vladimir Bugaj <sbugaj@pixar.com> - 2013-05-05 10:32 -0700
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Stephan Vladimir Bugaj <sbugaj@pixar.com> - 2013-05-05 10:33 -0700
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-05 18:34 +0100
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 03:35 +1000
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-05 10:35 -0700
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-05 19:24 +0100
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-05 18:52 +0100
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-05 13:58 -0400
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-05 19:13 +0000
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Petite Abeille <petite.abeille@gmail.com> - 2013-05-05 23:05 +0200
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-05 17:07 -0400
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> - 2013-05-05 17:37 -0400
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-05 17:49 -0400
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers William Ray Wing <wrw@mac.com> - 2013-05-07 17:02 -0400
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-05 19:10 +0000
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2013-05-05 20:37 +0000
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> - 2013-05-05 22:09 +0100
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2013-05-05 21:33 +0000
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-05 17:35 -0400
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2013-05-05 21:43 +0000
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 08:24 +1000
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-05 14:34 -0700
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers llanitedave <llanitedave@veawb.coop> - 2013-05-05 23:13 -0700
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 07:28 +0100
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2013-05-06 07:41 -0400
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 17:30 +1000
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-06 12:03 +0000
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Joshua Landau <joshua.landau.ws@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 17:04 +0100
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 08:49 +0100
          Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 06:22 -0700
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 23:32 +1000
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2013-05-07 13:41 -0700
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Walter Hurry <walterhurry@lavabit.com> - 2013-05-07 21:14 +0000
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 14:35 +0100
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Steve Simmons <square.steve@gmail.com> - 2013-05-07 15:17 +0100
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2013-05-08 03:06 +0000
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Terry Jan Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2013-05-07 14:40 -0400
            Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Neil Hodgson <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> - 2013-05-08 10:34 +1000
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Benjamin Kaplan <benjamin.kaplan@case.edu> - 2013-05-07 18:11 -0700
                Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers rusi <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2013-05-08 03:43 -0700
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> - 2013-05-08 02:22 +0100
              Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Dave Angel <davea@davea.name> - 2013-05-07 21:23 -0400
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Karim <kliateni@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 09:55 +0200
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 08:58 +0100
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 18:02 +1000
        Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> - 2013-05-06 10:00 +0100
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2013-05-05 14:17 -0700
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Ignoramus16992 <ignoramus16992@NOSPAM.16992.invalid> - 2013-05-05 18:05 -0500
    Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Henry Law <news@lawshouse.org> - 2013-05-06 07:07 +0100
      Re: Why do Perl programmers make more money than Python programmers Ignoramus30465 <ignoramus30465@NOSPAM.30465.invalid> - 2013-05-06 20:53 -0500

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#44782

In comp.lang.python Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <auo1hgFmripU2@mid.uni-berlin.de>,
>  jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) wrote:

> > Well, that didn't have a happy ending:-( Should have listened to
> > my parents when they told me again and again "Never use Perl, just
> > say no!". Seems I'm doomed - what's the proper way to apply for a
> > job with the mob?

> I don't think you apply.  If they want you, they'll find you.

I see, that's what's called headhuntering, isn't it?

-- 
  \   Jens Thoms Toerring  ___      jt@toerring.de
   \__________________________      http://toerring.de

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44785

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 7:09 AM, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mssgmbh.com> wrote:
> jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) writes:
>> Now you got me badly worried, using both Perl and Python (and
>> other, unspeakable languages, but not VB I promise!) Will I
>> end up as a Python hacker for the mob or worse
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_Case_of_Dr_Jekyll_and_Mr_Hyde

Ah, that would be me. Every night, I work on open source projects
written in good languages; but four days a week from 9:00 till 5:00 my
other nature takes over, and there is a struggle between the forces of
Good and Evil. The Evil side is strong, but even there the Good side
is not completely unheard; there are occasional times when I fight off
the PHP influence. (I'm still confident that we will eventually move
off PHP altogether. My boss reckons it'll never happen, but I can be
patient...)

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44779

Steven D'Aprano於 2013年5月6日星期一UTC+8上午3時10分47秒寫道：
> On Sun, 05 May 2013 12:11:11 -0500, Ignoramus16992 wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> > According to CIO.com, Python programmers make only $83,000 per year,
> 
> > while Perl programmers make $93,000 per year.
> 
> > 
> 
> > http://www.cio.com/slideshow/detail/97819?source=ifwartcio#slide10
> 
> > http://www.cio.com/slideshow/detail/97819?source=ifwartcio#slide11
> 
> > 
> 
> > I would like to know, what explains the discrepancy.
> 
> 
> 
> Perl is much harder to use, so the average Perl programmer burns out 
> 
> after a few years and takes up a less stressful career, like going 
> 
> undercover in the Russian mob or the Taliban. So only the most dedicated, 
> 
> brilliant and extreme programmers last long enough to become a Perl 
> 
> expert, and consequently can demand higher pay, while any idiot can learn 
> 
> to program Python, as I have.
> 
> 
> 
> Also, Perl programmers are an unprincipled, devious bunch, always looking 
> 
> for an opportunity to blackmail their employers into paying them extra. 
> 
> Python programmers are a decent, law-abiding people with a strong moral 
> 
> code who would never stoop to the sort of things that Perl coders are 
> 
> proud of doing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steven


Some bosses just like the 1 to 5 liners  of the Perl style 
in some cryptic forms from villain Perl programmers.

I did see the same tricks in the Lisp or C/C++ before
but with extremely long fat source codes in tens of 
thousands of lines that could also pleased some managers 
or bosses.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44802

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 12:10:47 PM UTC-7, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> 
> 
> Also, Perl programmers are an unprincipled, devious bunch, always looking 
> 
> for an opportunity to blackmail their employers into paying them extra. 
> 
> Python programmers are a decent, law-abiding people with a strong moral 
> 
> code who would never stoop to the sort of things that Perl coders are 
> 
> proud of doing.
> 
>
> 
> -- 
> 
> Steven

And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80 characters wide.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44803

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

> And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80 characters
wide.

No! Was it not seventy characters wide? Was I fooled my entire life?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44817

In article <mailman.1317.1367821725.3114.python-list@python.org>,
 Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> wrote:

> > And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80 characters
> wide.
> 
> No! Was it not seventy characters wide? Was I fooled my entire life?

The entire moral code in a semi-tweet.  How convenient.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44804

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80 characters
>> wide.
>
> No! Was it not seventy characters wide? Was I fooled my entire life?

Well you see, it was 70 bytes back in the Python 2 days (I'll defer to
Steven for data points earlier than that), but with Python 3, there
were two versions: one was 140 bytes representing 70 characters, the
other 280 bytes representing 70 characters. In Python 3.3, they were
merged, and a trivial amount of overhead added, so now it's 80 bytes
representing 70 characters. But you have an absolute guarantee that
it's correct now.

Of course, the entire code can be represented as a single int now. You
used to have to use a long.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44824

On Mon, 06 May 2013 17:30:33 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80
>>> characters wide.
>>
>> No! Was it not seventy characters wide? Was I fooled my entire life?
> 
> Well you see, it was 70 bytes back in the Python 2 days (I'll defer to
> Steven for data points earlier than that),


You had bytes? You were lucky. When I were a lad, we used to have to 
program by punching holes in stone tablets with our head.


You-tell-young-people-this-today-and-they-don't-believe-you-ly y'rs,



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44834

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6 May 2013 13:03, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info>wrote:

> On Mon, 06 May 2013 17:30:33 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
>
> > On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Fábio Santos <fabiosantosart@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>> And of course, the Python Programmer's moral code is only 80
> >>> characters wide.
> >>
> >> No! Was it not seventy characters wide? Was I fooled my entire life?
> >
> > Well you see, it was 70 bytes back in the Python 2 days (I'll defer to
> > Steven for data points earlier than that),
>
>
> You had bytes? You were lucky. When I were a lad, we used to have to
> program by punching holes in stone tablets with our head.
>
>
> You-tell-young-people-this-today-and-they-don't-believe-you-ly y'rs,


I do have my doubts, yes.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44806

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On 6 May 2013 08:34, "Chris Angelico" <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well you see, it was 70 bytes back in the Python 2 days (I'll defer to
> Steven for data points earlier than that), but with Python 3, there
> were two versions: one was 140 bytes representing 70 characters, the
> other 280 bytes representing 70 characters. In Python 3.3, they were
> merged, and a trivial amount of overhead added, so now it's 80 bytes
> representing 70 characters. But you have an absolute guarantee that
> it's correct now.
>
> Of course, the entire code can be represented as a single int now. You
> used to have to use a long.
>
> ChrisA
> --

Thanks. You have made my day.

I may rise the average pay of a Python programmer in Portugal. I have asked
for a raise back in December, and was told that it wouldn't happen before
this year. I have done well. I think I deserve better pay than a
supermarket employee now. I am sure that my efforts were appreciated and I
will be rewarded. I am being sarcastic.

The above paragraph wouldn't be true if I programmed in perl, c++ or lisp.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44886

On 6 mai, 09:49, Fábio Santos <fabiosantos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 6 May 2013 08:34, "Chris Angelico" <ros...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Well you see, it was 70 bytes back in the Python 2 days (I'll defer to
> > Steven for data points earlier than that), but with Python 3, there
> > were two versions: one was 140 bytes representing 70 characters, the
> > other 280 bytes representing 70 characters. In Python 3.3, they were
> > merged, and a trivial amount of overhead added, so now it's 80 bytes
> > representing 70 characters. But you have an absolute guarantee that
> > it's correct now.
>
> > Of course, the entire code can be represented as a single int now. You
> > used to have to use a long.
>
> > ChrisA
> > --
>
> Thanks. You have made my day.
>
> I may rise the average pay of a Python programmer in Portugal. I have asked
> for a raise back in December, and was told that it wouldn't happen before
> this year. I have done well. I think I deserve better pay than a
> supermarket employee now. I am sure that my efforts were appreciated and I
> will be rewarded. I am being sarcastic.
>
> The above paragraph wouldn't be true if I programmed in perl, c++ or lisp.


-----


1) The memory gain for many of us (usually non ascii users)
just become irrelevant.

>>> sys.getsizeof('maçã')
41
>>> sys.getsizeof('abcd')
29

2) More critical, Py 3.3, just becomes non unicode compliant,
(eg European languages or "ascii" typographers !)

>>> import timeit
>>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'a'")
2.186670111428325
>>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '€'")
2.9951699820528432
>>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'œ'")
3.0036780444886233
>>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'ẞ'")
3.004992278824048
>>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
3.231025618708202
>>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '€'")
3.215894398100758
>>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
3.224407974255655
>>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '’'")
3.2206342273566406
>>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '’'")
2.9914403449067777

3) Python is "pround" to cover the whole unicode range,
unfortunately it "breaks" the BMP range.
Small GvR exemple (ascii) from the the bug list,
but with non ascii characters.

# Py 3.2, all chars

>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
[0.09087790617297742, 0.07456871885972305, 0.07449940353376405]
>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'x' in a")
[0.10088136800095526, 0.07488497003487282, 0.07497594640028638]


# Py 3.3 ascii and non ascii chars
>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
[0.11426985953005442, 0.10040049292649655, 0.09920834808588097]
>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'é' in a")
[0.2345595188256766, 0.21637172864154763, 0.2179096624382737]


There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are
also plenty of good reasons to not use (or now to drop)
Python and to realize that if you wish to process text
seriously, you are better served by using "corporate
products" or tools using Unicode properly.

jmf

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44890

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are
> also plenty of good reasons to not use (or now to drop)
> Python and to realize that if you wish to process text
> seriously, you are better served by using "corporate
> products" or tools using Unicode properly.

There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. One of them is the
laughs you can get any time jmf posts here. There are also plenty of
good reasons to drop Python. One of them is because corporate products
like Microsoft Visual Studio are inherently better specifically
because they cost you money, and there's no way that something you
paid nothing for can ever be as good as that. Plus, you get to write
code that works on only one platform, and that's really good. Finally,
moving off Python would mean you don't feel obliged to respond to jmf,
which will increase your productivity measurably.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44904

Chris Angelico於 2013年5月7日星期二UTC+8下午9時32分55秒寫道：
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are
> 
> > also plenty of good reasons to not use (or now to drop)
> 
> > Python and to realize that if you wish to process text
> 
> > seriously, you are better served by using "corporate
> 
> > products" or tools using Unicode properly.
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. One of them is the
> 
> laughs you can get any time jmf posts here. There are also plenty of
> 
> good reasons to drop Python. One of them is because corporate products
> 
> like Microsoft Visual Studio are inherently better specifically
> 
> because they cost you money, and there's no way that something you
> 
> paid nothing for can ever be as good as that. Plus, you get to write
> 
People used MS products  because most bosses did not  want to pay 
the prices of work stations,  the minis, or the main-frames and 
the salaries of the system  administrators  in 199x. 


> code that works on only one platform, and that's really good. Finally,
> 
> moving off Python would mean you don't feel obliged to respond to jmf,
> 
> which will increase your productivity measurably.
> 
> 
> 
> ChrisA

The price issue of a software  package or a platform is not 
the only  way to judge a programming language.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44905

On Tue, 07 May 2013 23:32:55 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:

> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:22 PM, jmfauth <wxjmfauth@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are also plenty
>> of good reasons to not use (or now to drop) Python and to realize that
>> if you wish to process text seriously, you are better served by using
>> "corporate products" or tools using Unicode properly.
> 
> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. One of them is the
> laughs you can get any time jmf posts here. There are also plenty of
> good reasons to drop Python. One of them is because corporate products
> like Microsoft Visual Studio are inherently better specifically because
> they cost you money, and there's no way that something you paid nothing
> for can ever be as good as that. Plus, you get to write code that works
> on only one platform, and that's really good. Finally,
> moving off Python would mean you don't feel obliged to respond to jmf,
> which will increase your productivity measurably.

TMML. Thanks!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44891

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

>
>
> -----
>
>
> 1) The memory gain for many of us (usually non ascii users)
> just become irrelevant.
>
> >>> sys.getsizeof('maçã')
> 41
> >>> sys.getsizeof('abcd')
> 29
>
> 2) More critical, Py 3.3, just becomes non unicode compliant,
> (eg European languages or "ascii" typographers !)
>
> >>> import timeit
> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'a'")
> 2.186670111428325
> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '€'")
> 2.9951699820528432
> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'œ'")
> 3.0036780444886233
> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'ẞ'")
> 3.004992278824048
> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
> 3.231025618708202
> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '€'")
> 3.215894398100758
> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
> 3.224407974255655
> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '’'")
> 3.2206342273566406
> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '’'")
> 2.9914403449067777
>
> 3) Python is "pround" to cover the whole unicode range,
> unfortunately it "breaks" the BMP range.
> Small GvR exemple (ascii) from the the bug list,
> but with non ascii characters.
>
> # Py 3.2, all chars
>
> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
> [0.09087790617297742, 0.07456871885972305, 0.07449940353376405]
> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'x' in a")
> [0.10088136800095526, 0.07488497003487282, 0.07497594640028638]
>
>
> # Py 3.3 ascii and non ascii chars
> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
> [0.11426985953005442, 0.10040049292649655, 0.09920834808588097]
> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'é' in a")
> [0.2345595188256766, 0.21637172864154763, 0.2179096624382737]
>
>
> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are
> also plenty of good reasons to not use (or now to drop)
> Python and to realize that if you wish to process text
> seriously, you are better served by using "corporate
> products" or tools using Unicode properly.
>
> jmf

This is so off-topic that, after reading this, I feel I have just returned
from the Moon.

OTOH, it would seem like you know the Portuguese word for apple, so I also
feel home.

I am so confused.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44894

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

"Fábio Santos" <fabiosantosart@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>>
>> -----
>>
>>
>> 1) The memory gain for many of us (usually non ascii users)
>> just become irrelevant.
>>
>> >>> sys.getsizeof('maçã')
>> 41
>> >>> sys.getsizeof('abcd')
>> 29
>>
>> 2) More critical, Py 3.3, just becomes non unicode compliant,
>> (eg European languages or "ascii" typographers !)
>>
>> >>> import timeit
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'a'")
>> 2.186670111428325
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '€'")
>> 2.9951699820528432
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'œ'")
>> 3.0036780444886233
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + 'ẞ'")
>> 3.004992278824048
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
>> 3.231025618708202
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '€'")
>> 3.215894398100758
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + 'œ'")
>> 3.224407974255655
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'maçã'*1000 + '’'")
>> 3.2206342273566406
>> >>> timeit.timeit("'abcd'*1000 + '’'")
>> 2.9914403449067777
>>
>> 3) Python is "pround" to cover the whole unicode range,
>> unfortunately it "breaks" the BMP range.
>> Small GvR exemple (ascii) from the the bug list,
>> but with non ascii characters.
>>
>> # Py 3.2, all chars
>>
>> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
>> [0.09087790617297742, 0.07456871885972305, 0.07449940353376405]
>> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'x' in a")
>> [0.10088136800095526, 0.07488497003487282, 0.07497594640028638]
>>
>>
>> # Py 3.3 ascii and non ascii chars
>> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
>> [0.11426985953005442, 0.10040049292649655, 0.09920834808588097]
>> >>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'é' in a")
>> [0.2345595188256766, 0.21637172864154763, 0.2179096624382737]
>>
>>
>> There are plenty of good reasons to use Python. There are
>> also plenty of good reasons to not use (or now to drop)
>> Python and to realize that if you wish to process text
>> seriously, you are better served by using "corporate
>> products" or tools using Unicode properly.
>>
>> jmf
>
>This is so off-topic that, after reading this, I feel I have just
>returned
>from the Moon.
>
>OTOH, it would seem like you know the Portuguese word for apple, so I
>also
>feel home.
>
>I am so confused.
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>-- 
>http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Good to see jmf finally comparing apples with apples :-) 

Sent from a Galaxy far far away

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44937

On Tue, 07 May 2013 15:17:52 +0100, Steve Simmons wrote:

> Good to see jmf finally comparing apples with apples :-)

*groans*

Truly the terrible pun that the terrible hijacking deserves.



-- 
Steven

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44898

On 5/7/2013 9:22 AM, jmfauth road forth on his dead hobbyhorse to hijack 
yet another thread:

> # Py 3.3 ascii and non ascii chars
>>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
> [0.11426985953005442, 0.10040049292649655, 0.09920834808588097]
>>>> timeit.repeat("a = 'maçãé€ẞ'; 'é' in a")
> [0.2345595188256766, 0.21637172864154763, 0.2179096624382737]

Python 3.3 is a language. Languages do not have timings.
CPython 3.3.0 is an implementation compiled and run under a particular 
OS and hardware. With respect to Unicode timings, especially for 
find/replace, it is obsolete. On my Win7 machine with fresh debug builds 
from the current repository, I see these times.

Python 3.3.1+ (default, May  7 2013, 14:03:12) [MSC v.1600 32 bit (Int
 >>> from timeit import repeat
 >>> repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
[0.19007337649622968, 0.190116721780754, 0.1900149679567562]
 >>> repeat("a = 'maçaé??'; 'é' in a")
[0.20568874581187716, 0.20568782357178053, 0.20577051776710914]

Python 3.4.0a0 (default:32067784f198, May  7 2013, 13:59:10) [MSC v.1600
 >>> from timeit import repeat
 >>> repeat("a = 'hundred'; 'x' in a")
[0.1708080882915779, 0.17062978853956826, 0.1706740560642051]
 >>> repeat("a = 'maçaé??'; 'é' in a")
[0.17612111348809734, 0.17562925210324565, 0.17549245315558437]

Note 1: debug builds are slower than install builds, especially for 
microbenchmarks with trivial statements. My installed 3.3.1 on a 
different machine has timings of about .1 for the ascii test. It is 
slower for the non-ascii test because the latest improvements were made 
after 3.3.1 was released.

Note 2: 3.4 has additional improvements that speed up everything, so 
that the 3.4 non-ascii time is faster that even the 3.3 ascii time.

Terry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44921

jmfauth:

> 2) More critical, Py 3.3, just becomes non unicode compliant,
> (eg European languages or "ascii" typographers !)
> ...

    This is not demonstrating non-compliance. It is comparing 
performance, not compliance.

    Please show an example where Python 3.3 is not compliant with Unicode.

    Neil

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#44924

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw

On May 7, 2013 5:42 PM, "Neil Hodgson" <nhodgson@iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> jmfauth:
>
>> 2) More critical, Py 3.3, just becomes non unicode compliant,
>> (eg European languages or "ascii" typographers !)
>> ...
>
>
>    This is not demonstrating non-compliance. It is comparing performance,
not compliance.
>
>    Please show an example where Python 3.3 is not compliant with Unicode.
>
>    Neil
> --
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

It's violating page 1+1j of the Unicode spec, where it says precisely how
long each operation is allowed to take. Only wise people can see that page.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web