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 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 08:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4430157c-1629-4deb-9c36-f34e18f851ff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 6:35:12 AM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > On 23/03/2016 06:09, Ben Finney wrote: > > > The problem is that Bart simultaneously is a beginner at Python, and > > expresses astonishment that everyone shrugs when Bart's > > dreadfully-written code performs so badly. > > My interests differ from most people here writing Python. > > For example, I'm interested in byte-code (any byte-code) and what can be > done with it. Investigating how well it performs in 'extreme' cases > means executing algorithms predominantly in byte-code, not measuring how > well some library function (in some unspecified language) can cope with > the algorithm. Thanks for clarifying your focus. As you explore this topic, keep in mind then that you are only looking at part of Python. When you find yourself wondering why the bytecode is a certain way, the answer might be, "Because wherever this bytecode is run, the standard library is available, and this problem is better solved with a thing in the standard library." This doesn't mean your investigations are invalid, but they are only part of the story. When it seems to you like Python has made a strange choice, you may have to broaden your perspective to understand it. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.58.1458749369.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On 23/03/2016 10:34, BartC wrote: > On 23/03/2016 06:09, Ben Finney wrote: > >> The problem is that Bart simultaneously is a beginner at Python, and >> expresses astonishment that everyone shrugs when Bart's >> dreadfully-written code performs so badly. > > My interests differ from most people here writing Python. > > For example, I'm interested in byte-code (any byte-code) and what can be > done with it. Investigating how well it performs in 'extreme' cases > means executing algorithms predominantly in byte-code, not measuring how > well some library function (in some unspecified language) can cope with > the algorithm. > > And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the > following the other day: > > c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] > > (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from > knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well > (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character). > It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string roughly every other character? -- 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 | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 12:24 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.60.1458750276.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 12:08, Mark Lawrence wrote: > > And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the > > following the other day: > > > > c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] > > > > (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from > > knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well > > (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character). > > > > It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string > roughly every other character? Er, I think he's suggesting that this would be in an inner loop (something like while psource: c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]). What I'm not sure of is why he thinks this is pythonic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 10:55 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f32cff$0$1602$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105561 |
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:24 am, Random832 wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 12:08, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> > And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the
>> > following the other day:
>> >
>> > c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
>> >
>> > (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from
>> > knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well
>> > (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character).
>> >
>>
>> It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string
>> roughly every other character?
>
> Er, I think he's suggesting that this would be in an inner loop
> (something like while psource: c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]).
> What I'm not sure of is why he thinks this is pythonic.
Because somebody here (Dennis) criticised his earlier code for passing "your
entire source string along with the character from it to the function", and
suggested splitting the string into its head and tail instead. Dennis' code
started:
while psource:
c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
lxsymbol = disptable[min(ord(c), 256)](c, psource)
But one positive: this conclusively proves that "Pythonic" is in the eye of
the beholder. Dennis thinks that c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] is
reasonable Python code; you think it's not ("I'm not sure why [Bart] thinks
this is pythonic").
Pythonic or not, Bart is correct to be concerned about the performance,
since this ends up copying the string over and over again. If we start with
the string "aardvark", say, it gets split:
"a", "ardvark"
"a", "rdvark"
"r", "dvark"
"d", "vark"
"v", "ark"
"a", "rk"
"r", "k"
"k", ""
each of which involves creating two string objects. Ignoring the effects of
string interning (caching), an 8-character string gets split up into:
8 x 1 character strings;
1 x 7 character string;
1 x 6 character string;
1 x 5 character string;
1 x 4 character string;
1 x 3 character string;
1 x 2 character string;
1 x 1 character string;
1 x 0 character string;
thus creating 16 string objects in total, and copying 8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1+0
characters, or 36 characters in total.
For an N character string, we have:
N x 1 character strings;
1 x N-1 character string;
1 x N-2 character string;
1 x N-3 character string;
...
1 x 2 character string;
1 x 1 character string;
1 x 0 character string;
giving a total of sum(range(N+1)) which is N*(N+1)/2. In big-oh notation,
this is quadratic behaviour: O(N**2), and Bart is right to be concerned.
This same sort of thing is precisely why building up a string by repeated
string concatenation can be horribly slow. This is the same, only in
reverse: we're demolishing the string, one character at a time.
Now, there are practical reasons why this may not be *quite* as bad as Bart
fears:
- caching of small strings may mean that we're more like O( (N-1)**2 ),
which is (barely) better;
- the coefficient is in our favour (1/2);
- string copying may be quite efficient (although not as efficient as in C,
where they can be implemented by just a memcopy, more or less);
- the strings are getting smaller all the time, which makes memory
management easier, when compared to having to allocate growing strings;
- although against that, perhaps this ends up fragmenting memory even more?
- it *may* turn out that the cost of the rest of the work done dwarfs the
cost of copying the string in the first place
- but then again it might not.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:12 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.72.1458778334.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105575 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 19:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> while psource:
> c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
> lxsymbol = disptable[min(ord(c), 256)](c, psource)
>
>
> But one positive: this conclusively proves that "Pythonic" is in the eye
> of
> the beholder. Dennis thinks that c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] is
> reasonable Python code; you think it's not ("I'm not sure why [Bart]
> thinks
> this is pythonic").
I guess the question is, what do you _actually_ need the tail string
for? If you're using it in a loop, to pop further characters from (the
scenario that would cause it to be copying the string over lots of
times), wouldn't it make more sense to use a StringIO (or, in the real
world where your C source code isn't a string, a file) and let that
class take care of handing out characters when you ask for them?
Like...
fsource = StringIO(psource)
while True:
c = fsource.read(1)
lxsymbol = disptable[min(ord(c), 256)](c, fsource)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 11:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.73.1458778545.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105575 |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com> wrote: > I guess the question is, what do you _actually_ need the tail string > for? If you're using it in a loop, to pop further characters from (the > scenario that would cause it to be copying the string over lots of > times), wouldn't it make more sense to use a StringIO (or, in the real > world where your C source code isn't a string, a file) and let that > class take care of handing out characters when you ask for them? > > Like... > > fsource = StringIO(psource) > > while True: > c = fsource.read(1) > lxsymbol = disptable[min(ord(c), 256)](c, fsource) Or... just grab an iterator off the string and call next() on it? ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 01:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.76.1458782011.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105575 |
On 23/03/2016 23:55, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 03:24 am, Random832 wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 12:08, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>>>> And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the
>>>> following the other day:
>>>>
>>>> c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
>>>>
>>>> (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from
>>>> knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well
>>>> (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character).
>>>>
>>>
>>> It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string
>>> roughly every other character?
>>
>> Er, I think he's suggesting that this would be in an inner loop
>> (something like while psource: c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]).
>> What I'm not sure of is why he thinks this is pythonic.
>
> Because somebody here (Dennis) criticised his earlier code for passing "your
> entire source string along with the character from it to the function", and
> suggested splitting the string into its head and tail instead. Dennis' code
> started:
>
> while psource:
> c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
> lxsymbol = disptable[min(ord(c), 256)](c, psource)
>
>
> But one positive: this conclusively proves that "Pythonic" is in the eye of
> the beholder. Dennis thinks that c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] is
> reasonable Python code; you think it's not ("I'm not sure why [Bart] thinks
> this is pythonic").
>
> Pythonic or not, Bart is correct to be concerned about the performance,
Where and when did he ever say anything about performance with respect
to the above piece of code?
--
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 | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 23:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.71.1458775357.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On 23/03/2016 16:24, Random832 wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 12:08, Mark Lawrence wrote: >>> And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the >>> following the other day: >>> >>> c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:] >>> >>> (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from >>> knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well >>> (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character). >>> >> >> It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string >> roughly every other character? > > Er, I think he's suggesting that this would be in an inner loop > (something like while psource: c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]). > What I'm not sure of is why he thinks this is pythonic. > It was in response to Dennis Lee Bieber http://code.activestate.com/lists/python-list/700242/. Quite why he thinks it won't work well I've no idea. I'd have said it was Pythonic, as slicing is a standard idiom. As for every other character, it again shows his complete ignorance of Python. Although thinking about it, it you were to skip every character that needed processing, surely that would be really fast? -- 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 | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:26 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.75.1458780091.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:24:28 -0400, Random832 <random832@fastmail.com>
declaimed the following:
>
>
>On Wed, Mar 23, 2016, at 12:08, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> > And doing it 'Pythonically' can lead to suggestions such as the
>> > following the other day:
>> >
>> > c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]
>> >
>> > (where psource is a very long string), which even I could tell, from
>> > knowing what goes on behind the scenes, wasn't going to work well
>> > (duplicating the rest of the string roughly every other character).
>> >
>>
>> It would work perfectly. How would it duplicate the rest of the string
>> roughly every other character?
>
>Er, I think he's suggesting that this would be in an inner loop
>(something like while psource: c, psource = psource[0], psource[1:]).
>What I'm not sure of is why he thinks this is pythonic.
That looks vaguely like something I wrote... And it would have been
meant to be in a loop with some other following functions which need the
leading single character (perhaps in something like a recursive descent
parser)
functions[c](psource)
which selects the function based upon current character, and passes the
rest of the string to the subsequent function.
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 16:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.59.1458749712.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105369 |
On 23/03/2016 06:09, Ben Finney wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> writes: > >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:47 pm, Ben Finney wrote: >> >>> Bart can show good faith by *learning* idiomatic Python, with the >>> humility of a beginner. And also by refraining from rhetoric about >>> how bad Python's performance is, until he gains experience to make >>> those claims. >> >> "Humility of a beginner"... what a strange phrase to use about >> somebody who has been programming for decades. > > What a strange reading of what I wrote. Clearly I'm referring to the > fact Bart is a beginner in Python. > > To show good faith in learning Python – if indeed that is what Bart > wants, which I'm not convinced of given how much he prefers to talk > about a different private programming language instead – then he should > be taking advantage of the teaching resources that have been offered > numerous times. > >> What exactly is the problem here? Is it that Bart hasn't earned the >> right to say what we all know, that Python is slow, because he's an >> outsider? > > The problem is that Bart simultaneously is a beginner at Python, and > expresses astonishment that everyone shrugs when Bart's > dreadfully-written code performs so badly. > > Good faith is contradicted by asserting knowledge of Python, complaining > about how some deliberately non-idiomatic Python code is performing > poorly, dismissing suggestions for improvement — specifically in the > context of someone who admittedly knows so little about Python. > +1 -- 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 | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 03:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.427.1458532837.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105327 |
On 21/03/2016 02:04, BartC wrote:
> On 21/03/2016 01:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence
>> <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up.
>>
>> Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better.
>>
>> def readstrfile(file):
>> try:
>> data=open(file,"r").read()
>> except:
>> return 0
>> return data
>>
>> def start():
>> psource=readstrfile(infile)
>> if psource==0:
>> print ("Can't open file",infile)
>> exit(0)
>>
>>
>>
>> So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets
>> squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being
>> printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome!
>
> I don't have a clue about exceptions, but why wouldn't read errors be
> picked up by the same except: block?
If you don't understand exceptions, you don't understand Python, which
prefers EAFP than LBYL. See
https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-eafp and
https://docs.python.org/3/glossary.html#term-lbyl
>
> But I've anyway sprinkled one or two more try/excepts in there and put
> some actual exception codes in. However, this readstrfile() is just
> there to load the file into memory and avoid having a 200,000-line
> string in the program.
>
Just let the exception bubble up if anything goes wrong. In most
circumstances that's far better than masking everything that could
possibly go wrong.
--
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+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:38 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56ef96f1$0$1516$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105325 |
On Monday 21 March 2016 12:35, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> > wrote: >> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up. > > Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better. [...] > So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets > squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being > printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome! While there is a certain level of entertainment to be gained from snarking at other people's bad code, and I'm as guilty as anyone else for doing so, please remember that Bart is engaged in a good-faith attempt to compare Python to other dynamic code. He's not claiming to be a Python expert or that he's writing idiomatic Python code. Bart, bare except clauses are (as a general rule) an anti-pattern, and should be avoided except for the quickest and dirtiest of throw-away scripts. With very few exceptions (heh) you should *always* specify the narrowest set of exceptions that you know you can deal with. Over-enthusiastic use of try...except is *deadly* for the ability to debug code: https://realpython.com/blog/python/the-most-diabolical-python-antipattern/ -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.432.1458544553.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105339 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:38 PM, Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> wrote: > On Monday 21 March 2016 12:35, Chris Angelico wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> >> wrote: >>> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up. >> >> Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better. > [...] >> So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets >> squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being >> printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome! > > > While there is a certain level of entertainment to be gained from snarking > at other people's bad code, and I'm as guilty as anyone else for doing so, > please remember that Bart is engaged in a good-faith attempt to compare > Python to other dynamic code. He's not claiming to be a Python expert or > that he's writing idiomatic Python code. Given that the exact same issue was pointed out the last time he posted a version of this code, I have less sympathy and more snark. I completely understand that not everyone understands what's idiomatic Python code; but when something is pointed out as a deadly anti-pattern (not just "that naming convention might confuse people"), I would expect to see changes. ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marko Rauhamaa <marko@pacujo.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87egb470wg.fsf@elektro.pacujo.net> |
| In reply to | #105343 |
Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com>: > Given that the exact same issue was pointed out the last time he > posted a version of this code, I have less sympathy and more snark. I > completely understand that not everyone understands what's idiomatic > Python code; but when something is pointed out as a deadly > anti-pattern (not just "that naming convention might confuse people"), > I would expect to see changes. How about simply not responding? Marko
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 02:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.423.1458525784.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105322 |
On 21/03/2016 01:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up.
>
> Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better.
>
> def readstrfile(file):
> try:
> data=open(file,"r").read()
> except:
> return 0
> return data
>
> def start():
> psource=readstrfile(infile)
> if psource==0:
> print ("Can't open file",infile)
> exit(0)
>
> So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets
> squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being
> printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome!
>
> ChrisA
>
The essential question is "which is faster?". Who cares about trivial
little details like the user being given false data, as (say) they can
open the file but can't read it. Or inadvertantly writing an infinite
loop and not being able to CTRL-C out of it, having to revert to your OS
to kill the rogue that's killing your CPU.
25 years of trying to teach people how to write Pythonic code and this
is how far we've got. Heck, I think I'll see my GP later today for some
more, more powerful, tranquilisers.
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 19:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncpin0$4m9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105326 |
On 21/03/2016 02:02, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 21/03/2016 01:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence
>> <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up.
>>
>> Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better.
>>
>> def readstrfile(file):
>> try:
>> data=open(file,"r").read()
>> except:
>> return 0
>> return data
>>
>> def start():
>> psource=readstrfile(infile)
>> if psource==0:
>> print ("Can't open file",infile)
>> exit(0)
>>
>> So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets
>> squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being
>> printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome!
>>
>> ChrisA
>>
>
> The essential question is "which is faster?". Who cares about trivial
> little details like the user being given false data, as (say) they can
> open the file but can't read it. Or inadvertantly writing an infinite
> loop and not being able to CTRL-C out of it, having to revert to your OS
> to kill the rogue that's killing your CPU.
>
> 25 years of trying to teach people how to write Pythonic code and this
> is how far we've got. Heck, I think I'll see my GP later today for some
> more, more powerful, tranquilisers.
>
This code was adapted from a program that used:
readstrfile(filename)
which either returned the contents of the file as a string, or 0.
That's all. My Python version was thrown together as I don't know if
there's a similar function to do the same.
If you want to talk about Pythonic, I don't see why that file API
doesn't count (the original is buried in a library).
Or does Pythonic mean bristling with exceptions and classes and what-not?
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 19:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.460.1458590330.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105397 |
On 21/03/2016 19:43, BartC wrote:
> On 21/03/2016 02:02, Mark Lawrence wrote:
>> On 21/03/2016 01:35, Chris Angelico wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:28 PM, Mark Lawrence
>>> <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up.
>>>
>>> Oh, keep going, Mark. It gets better.
>>>
>>> def readstrfile(file):
>>> try:
>>> data=open(file,"r").read()
>>> except:
>>> return 0
>>> return data
>>>
>>> def start():
>>> psource=readstrfile(infile)
>>> if psource==0:
>>> print ("Can't open file",infile)
>>> exit(0)
>>>
>>> So, if any exception happens during the reading of the file, it gets
>>> squashed, and 0 is returned - which results in a generic message being
>>> printed, and the program terminating, with return value 0. Awesome!
>>>
>>> ChrisA
>>>
>>
>> The essential question is "which is faster?". Who cares about trivial
>> little details like the user being given false data, as (say) they can
>> open the file but can't read it. Or inadvertantly writing an infinite
>> loop and not being able to CTRL-C out of it, having to revert to your OS
>> to kill the rogue that's killing your CPU.
>>
>> 25 years of trying to teach people how to write Pythonic code and this
>> is how far we've got. Heck, I think I'll see my GP later today for some
>> more, more powerful, tranquilisers.
>>
>
> This code was adapted from a program that used:
>
> readstrfile(filename)
>
> which either returned the contents of the file as a string, or 0.
So you've used a dreadful piece of code, not recognising it as such.
This again indicates that you know precisely nothing about Python, apart
from the well known fact that relative to some languages, it is rather
slow at run time. In programmer time it more than makes up for that.
Horses for courses?
>
> That's all. My Python version was thrown together as I don't know if
> there's a similar function to do the same.
"As I don't know", out of the horse's mouth.
>
> If you want to talk about Pythonic, I don't see why that file API
> doesn't count (the original is buried in a library).
Precisely, what does the file API have to do with a dreadfully written
piece of code misusing exceptions?
>
> Or does Pythonic mean bristling with exceptions and classes and what-not?
>
I've all ready pointed out that Python prefers EAFP to LBYL via
exceptions. Classes not necessarily, especially in the days of the
namedtuple.
--
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 | Ned Batchelder <ned@nedbatchelder.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d4d93df0-e768-4fe3-969c-3259397130e9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105397 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 3:43:40 PM UTC-4, BartC wrote: > > This code was adapted from a program that used: > > readstrfile(filename) > > which either returned the contents of the file as a string, or 0. > > That's all. My Python version was thrown together as I don't know if > there's a similar function to do the same. > > If you want to talk about Pythonic, I don't see why that file API > doesn't count (the original is buried in a library). > > Or does Pythonic mean bristling with exceptions and classes and what-not? Steven has argued eloquently that we should welcome you to the Python way of doing things. My question to you is: do you want to learn it? You already seem to have decided that exceptions and classes are useless. You aren't allowing yourself to use regexes, and probably other tools from the standard library. Your strategy seems to be to limit yourself to the subset of Python that overlaps with C, and then complain when something from C is missing. Why? Perhaps you would just be happier with C? Help us understand: why are you using Python? Why aren't you interested in learning what it has to offer? I'll gladly explain why Python programmers prefer exceptions over returned error codes, but I'll wait until I know whether you want to know. --Ned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dennis Lee Bieber <wlfraed@ix.netcom.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.469.1458601150.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105397 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:43:23 +0000, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> declaimed the
following:
>
>Or does Pythonic mean bristling with exceptions and classes and what-not?
What is not Pythonic is returning numeric 0 if ANYTHING prevented the
read operation from completing successfully. Let the exception through so
the caller can decide if they want to handle it.
data = readFileStr(fileName)
if type(data) == type(int) and data == 0:
print "Something happened but I won't tell you what"
sys.exit(0)
is NOT Pythonic...
try:
data = readFileStr(fileName)
if data == "": #empty string
print "EOF on read, no data returned"
except IOError:
print "Unexpected IO Error -- data is emptied here"
data = ""
except: #only here for the print, normal behavior would pass it up
print "Unhandled exception being reraised"
raise
is more Pythonic. It uses exception handlers, at the point of interest, in
the attempt to "fix" the problem (in this case, treating any IO Error as if
it were EOF on read -- as EOF on normal read returns an empty string. Any
other error gets reraised so someone higher can handle it (or it kills the
program at the very top level).
--
Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber AF6VN
wlfraed@ix.netcom.com HTTP://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 12:01 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f09973$0$1601$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105397 |
On Tue, 22 Mar 2016 06:43 am, BartC wrote:
> This code was adapted from a program that used:
>
> readstrfile(filename)
>
> which either returned the contents of the file as a string, or 0.
What an interesting function. And I don't mean that in a good way.
So if it returns 0, how do you know what the problem is? Mistyped file name?
Permission denied? File doesn't actually exist? Disk corruption and you
can't open the file? Some weird OS problem where you can't *close* the
file? (That can actually happen, although it's never happened to me.) How
do you debug any problems, given only "0" as a result?
What happens if you read (let's say) a 20GB Blue-Ray disk image?
Such a function is good only for the quickest and dirtiest of quick and
dirty scripts. But if you're going to be quick and dirty, in Python you
might as well be even quicker and dirtier:
open(filename).read()
and just don't bother to do any error handling at all. If there's a problem,
you'll get a traceback and the program will halt.
> That's all. My Python version was thrown together as I don't know if
> there's a similar function to do the same.
>
> If you want to talk about Pythonic, I don't see why that file API
> doesn't count (the original is buried in a library).
What library? Who wrote it?
> Or does Pythonic mean bristling with exceptions and classes and what-not?
Not everything written in Python is Pythonic. In fact, there's really no
objective definition of "Pythonic". It's like art, "I'll know it when I see
it". It means elegant use of Python idioms, but people can and do argue
over what's elegant and idiomatic.
This is no different from any other language. How do you know the difference
between good, idiomatic C code, and poor C code written by people who don't
know the language?
You can start to get an idea of Pythonic by reading the Zen of Python:
import this
but beware that, like most koans, the Zen is deliberately contradictory, and
contains at least one subtle joke.
"Pythonic" code should not be "too clever", just clever enough. If it is
hard to understand, it's probably not Pythonic. If it slavishly follows
recipes and practices from other languages, it's probably not Pythonic.
Code which does a lot of clever bit-twiddling to optimise arithmetic (as
seen often in C code) is probably not Pythonic, because in Python the
performance difference between `x << 1` and `x*2` is probably
insignificant. So write what is most clear, not what you write in C code.
Code which has dozens of classes like Java is usually not Pythonic. See:
http://dirtsimple.org/2004/12/python-is-not-java.html
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/03/execution-in-kingdom-of-nouns.html
If you're writing code to solve problems that don't occur in Python, then
your code is not Pythonic.
Pythonic code probably uses a lot of iterables:
for value in something:
...
in preference to Pascal code written in Python:
for index in range(len(something)):
value = something[index]
...
or worse:
index = 0
while index < len(something):
value = something[index]
...
index += 1
(I don't know where that while-loop idiom comes from. C? Assembly? Penitent
monks living in hair shirts in the desert and flogging themselves with
chains every single night to mortify the accursed flesh? But I'm seeing it
a lot in code written by beginners. I presume somebody, or some book, is
teaching it to them. "Learn Python The Hard Way" perhaps?)
Pythonic code tends to reduce boilercode, not increase it. One line for
the "for value" loop; two lines for the Pascal version; four lines for the
hairshirt version using while.
But on the other hand, Pythonic code doesn't try too hard to minimise the
number of lines of code. If you find yourself asking "how do I write this
as one line", and the answer is some awful tricky code, then it probably
isn't Pythonic. If it takes two lines, it takes two lines, and not
everything needs to be a one-liner.
Perl one-liners are not Pythonic.
Really, the only way to learn what is and isn't Pythonic is to read and
write so much Python code that you learn what's elegant, idiomatic,
Pythonic code.
Unfortunately, real world code, which has to deal with errors and exceptions
and optimizations, is rarely Pythonic. But if you start with something like
the Python standard library, close one eye and squint, you can usually see
the Pythonic code peeking out from behind the error checking and
optimizations.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web