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 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 10:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56e7483d$0$1608$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #104779 |
On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:39 am, BartC wrote:
> class switch(object):
> value = None
> def __new__(class_, value):
> class_.value = value
> return True
>
> def case(*args):
> return any((arg == switch.value for arg in args))
That's quite a clever use of a class. By clever, I mean imaginative, not
necessarily smart.
> I used it in my benchmark to replace the if-else chain checking three
> lots of ranges:
>
> switch(c)
> if case(ord("A"),ord("B"),ord("C"),ord("D"),ord("E"),ord("F"),
> ord("G"),ord("H"),ord("I"),ord("J"),ord("K"),ord("L"),
> ord("M"),ord("N"),ord("O"),ord("P"),ord("Q"),ord("R"),
> ord("S"),ord("T"),ord("U"),ord("V"),ord("W"),ord("X"),
> ord("Y"),ord("Z")):
> upper+=1
> elif case(ord("a"),ord("b"),ord("c"),ord("d"),ord("e"),ord("f"),
> ord("g"),ord("h"),ord("i"),ord("j"),ord("k"),ord("l"),
> ord("m"),ord("n"),ord("o"),ord("p"),ord("q"),ord("r"),
> ord("s"),ord("t"),ord("u"),ord("v"),ord("w"),ord("x"),
> ord("y"),ord("z")):
> lower+=1
> elif case(ord("0"),ord("1"),ord("2"),ord("3"),ord("4"),ord("5"),
> ord("6"),ord("7"),ord("8"),ord("9")):
> digits+=1
> else:
> other+=1
Ai-ai-ai-aiye!
What a mess! See what happens when you write assembly language in
Python? :-)
Try this instead:
c = chr(c)
if 'A' <= c <= 'Z':
upper += 1
elif 'a' <= c <= 'z':
lower += 1
elif '0' <= c <= '9':
digits += 1
else:
other += 1
But even better:
if c.isupper():
upper += 1
elif c islower():
lower += 1
elif c.isdigit():
digits += 1
else:
other += 1
which will work correctly for non-ASCII characters as well.
--
Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 00:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nc7kjr$jj8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104876 |
On 14/03/2016 23:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Mar 2016 06:39 am, BartC wrote:
>
>> class switch(object):
>> value = None
>> def __new__(class_, value):
>> class_.value = value
>> return True
>>
>> def case(*args):
>> return any((arg == switch.value for arg in args))
>
> That's quite a clever use of a class. By clever, I mean imaginative, not
> necessarily smart.
I think so too. But it also looks inefficient.
> Try this instead:
>
> c = chr(c)
> if 'A' <= c <= 'Z':
> upper += 1
> elif 'a' <= c <= 'z':
> lower += 1
> elif '0' <= c <= '9':
> digits += 1
> else:
> other += 1
>
>
> But even better:
>
> if c.isupper():
> upper += 1
> elif c islower():
> lower += 1
> elif c.isdigit():
> digits += 1
> else:
> other += 1
>
>
> which will work correctly for non-ASCII characters as well.
Yes, but now you've destroyed my example!
A more realistic use of switch is shown below [not Python]. I've taken
out the code for each section, including various nested switches, to
show the test patterns better.
Now an if-elif chain won't perform as well.
doswitch p++^ # (looping switch)
when 'a'..'z','$','_' then
when '0'..'9' then
when 'A'..'Z' then
when '!' then
when '#' then
when '\\' then
when '{' then
when '}' then
when '.' then
when ',' then
when ';' then
when ':' then
when '(' then
when ')' then
when '[' then
when ']' then
when '|' then
when '^' then
when '@' then
when '?' then
when '£' then
when '~' then
when '¬' then
when '+' then
when '-' then
when '*' then
when '/' then
when '%' then
when '=' then
when '<' then
when '>' then
when '&' then
when '\'','`' then
when '"' then
when ' ','\t' then
when cr then
when lf then
when etx,0 then
else # unicode goes here...
end switch
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-15 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.145.1458003306.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #104882 |
On 15/03/2016 00:25, BartC wrote: [snip I really don't know what, it certainly isn't Python] > when etx,0 then > else # unicode goes here... > end switch > As John McEnroe famously said, "You cannot be serious". -- 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 01:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncnhp9$tt7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104882 |
On 15/03/2016 00:25, BartC wrote: > On 14/03/2016 23:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >> Try this instead: >> >> c = chr(c) >> if 'A' <= c <= 'Z': >> upper += 1 >> elif 'a' <= c <= 'z': >> lower += 1 >> elif '0' <= c <= '9': >> digits += 1 >> else: >> other += 1 >> >> >> But even better: >> >> if c.isupper(): >> upper += 1 >> elif c islower(): >> lower += 1 >> elif c.isdigit(): >> digits += 1 >> else: >> other += 1 >> >> >> which will work correctly for non-ASCII characters as well. > > Yes, but now you've destroyed my example! > > A more realistic use of switch is shown below [not Python]. A tokeniser along those lines in Python, with most of the bits filled in, is here: http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ This is a test of a character-at-a-time task in Python; I know such tasks are not popular here, but exactly such tasks are what I often use dynamic languages for. I started off trying to write it in a more efficient way that would suit Python better, but quickly tired of that. I should be able to express the code how I want. But it is based on strings (integers seem to be slower in Python), and uses your style above. However, this is crying out for at least a case statement (which works with anything) if not a switch that works with ints and constants. All other versions it is compared against use switches, integers, and names that don't change at runtime. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Performance figures for the test code above. These use the same input file (220K lines of CPython C sources), and show lines-per-second achieved not runtime. Interpreters: Py2 Python 2 (various) Py3 Python 3.4 PyPy PyPy 3.2.5 PCA Mine (accelerated via some ASM routines, 64-bit) PCC Mine (standard, 32-bit) Windows 7 64-bits: Py3: 33K lps (lines per second) Py2: 43K lps PyPy 100K lps PCC: 460K lps C: 1000K lps (Tiny C compiler, native code) PCA: 1200K lps B: 5800K Lps (My own compiler, native code) C: 9000K lps (gcc C compiler, native code) (Tiny C is particularly poor at generating code for switches. Still, native code is running slower than byte-code, which is something.) Ubuntu 15.x 64-bits (run via VirtualBox on Windows 7): Py2: 58K lps PyPy: 133K lps (2.x) PCC: 250-330K lps (via 'wine'; timings variable) PCA: 500-800K lps (via 'wine') (Debian on an old Raspberry Pi: Py2: 2K lps PCC: 16K lps I think these, especially for PCC, should be faster. But this was a hastily created Linux port of PCC.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 01:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.421.1458523757.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105322 |
On 21/03/2016 01:15, BartC wrote: > On 15/03/2016 00:25, BartC wrote: > > On 14/03/2016 23:24, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > >> Try this instead: > >> > >> c = chr(c) > >> if 'A' <= c <= 'Z': > >> upper += 1 > >> elif 'a' <= c <= 'z': > >> lower += 1 > >> elif '0' <= c <= '9': > >> digits += 1 > >> else: > >> other += 1 > >> > >> But even better: > >> > >> if c.isupper(): > >> upper += 1 > >> elif c islower(): > >> lower += 1 > >> elif c.isdigit(): > >> digits += 1 > >> else: > >> other += 1 > >> > >> which will work correctly for non-ASCII characters as well. > > > > Yes, but now you've destroyed my example! > > > > A more realistic use of switch is shown below [not Python]. > > A tokeniser along those lines in Python, with most of the bits filled > in, is here: > > http://pastebin.com/dtM8WnFZ > I got to line 22, saw the bare except, and promptly gave up. -- 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 | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 12:35 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.422.1458524141.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105322 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 02:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncnkma$d1i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105325 |
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?
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.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:07 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.424.1458526084.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105327 |
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:04 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> 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?
They are. So would NameError, AttributeError, KeyboardInterrupt, and
anything else that happens to get raised. Everything gets absorbed
into the same message, "Can't open file", and then the program exits 0
to make absolutely sure that the caller can't figure anything out.
ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:11 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.425.1458526280.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105327 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > I don't have a clue about exceptions Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have learned Python. You are a Python beginner. You would be welcome to learn Python over at the ‘tutor’ forum <URL:https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor>. Otherwise, please stop with the assertions about how Python works. You're free to tinker privately with your own programming language. But this is not an appropriate forum to go on at length about it in comparison with Python. You can create your own weblog if you want a forum for that. -- \ “Program testing can be a very effective way to show the | `\ presence of bugs, but is hopelessly inadequate for showing | _o__) their absence.” —Edsger W. Dijkstra | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56ef9787$0$1516$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105329 |
On Monday 21 March 2016 13:11, Ben Finney wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> I don't have a clue about exceptions > > Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have learned > Python. I don't see how "I don't have a clue about exceptions" is an assertion about Python code. I think there's a lot of hostility aimed at Bart, undeserved hostility, because he continues to demonstrate that Python is not as fast as it could be. I don't see that Bart is trolling or being malicious, although I do think he perhaps hasn't fully grasped the idea that *we know*, and we're willing to live with reduced speed in favour of certain design choices. (Ironically, for all that we as a community will go to the battlements to fight to the death to keep these dynamic features, we'll also tar and feather anyone who actually *uses* them. I've even seen people criticise Raymond Hettinger, one of the most experienced and competent senior Python guys, because his "namedtuple" uses exec. Go figure.) I'll ask everyone to please give Bart the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. Rather than snark at him if he writes un-Pythonic code, teach him how to write it better, don't just sneer at the poor quality of his code or fob him off onto another list. (Bart, I am also on the tutor mailing list that Ben suggested, and you would be welcome them.) -- Steve
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eef6ef66-2b1f-418a-998e-1c87f55ba270@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105340 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 12:11:19 PM UTC+5:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Monday 21 March 2016 13:11, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > BartC writes:
> >
> >> I don't have a clue about exceptions
> >
> > Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have learned
> > Python.
>
>
> I don't see how "I don't have a clue about exceptions" is an assertion about
> Python code.
>
> I think there's a lot of hostility aimed at Bart, undeserved hostility,
> because he continues to demonstrate that Python is not as fast as it could
> be. I don't see that Bart is trolling or being malicious, although I do
> think he perhaps hasn't fully grasped the idea that *we know*, and we're
> willing to live with reduced speed in favour of certain design choices.
>
> (Ironically, for all that we as a community will go to the battlements to
> fight to the death to keep these dynamic features, we'll also tar and
> feather anyone who actually *uses* them. I've even seen people criticise
> Raymond Hettinger, one of the most experienced and competent senior Python
> guys, because his "namedtuple" uses exec. Go figure.)
>
> I'll ask everyone to please give Bart the benefit of the doubt and assume
> good faith. Rather than snark at him if he writes un-Pythonic code, teach
> him how to write it better, don't just sneer at the poor quality of his code
> or fob him off onto another list.
>
> (Bart, I am also on the tutor mailing list that Ben suggested, and you would
> be welcome them.)
Thanks Steven for a reasonable response.
Mark's comments are in joke category.
He has the highest #posts/#python-knowledge ratio out here
Chris and Ben's responses smell like sour grapes.
Notice how such responses seem to get sharper as the (imagined) criticism of
python increases
Bart(C): The best use of exceptions is to not bother about them:
Ignore:
>>> open("NonExistentFile")
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'NonExistentFile'
Handle:
>>> try:
... open("NonExistentFile")
... except IOError as i:
... print i
...
[Errno 2] No such file or directory: 'NonExistentFile'
>>>
So the payoff you get for the 4 extra lines of explicit handling is no traceback
Ok... But tracebacks are not that bad are they?
And JFTR: Pointing out unsatisfactory usage of one language feature
when you are trying to focus on another looks frankly silly to me.
The more reasonable response may be: If you are suggesting a new/changed
feature you should be doing that on the ideas list
About switch/case:
Almost every modern functional language has a case that is way more powerful
(and as efficient) as the imasculated imperative case/switch.
See my post in the other thread on "case" for a small list of such languages
Why settle for a ½-assed choice?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.433.1458546438.12893.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105340 |
Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > On Monday 21 March 2016 13:11, Ben Finney wrote: > > Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have > > learned Python. > > I don't see how "I don't have a clue about exceptions" is an assertion > about Python code. That's not the assertion. I'm asking Bart to acknowledge that, because of the ignorance he admits to above, he should not be making elsewhere the sky-is-falling assertions about Python's failings. > I'll ask everyone to please give Bart the benefit of the doubt and > assume good faith. Bart is continuing to demonstrate *bad* faith by showing un-idiomatic Python code in support of his claims about how bad Python is, while simultaneously being confessedly ignorant about idiomatic Python. 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. -- \ “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our | `\ inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter | _o__) the state of facts and evidence.” —John Adams, 1770-12-04 | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steven D'Aprano <steve@pearwood.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 03:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <56f02196$0$1588$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #105345 |
On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:47 pm, Ben Finney wrote: > Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: > >> On Monday 21 March 2016 13:11, Ben Finney wrote: >> > Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have >> > learned Python. >> >> I don't see how "I don't have a clue about exceptions" is an assertion >> about Python code. > > That's not the assertion. I'm asking Bart to acknowledge that, because > of the ignorance he admits to above, he should not be making elsewhere > the sky-is-falling assertions about Python's failings. I haven't seen these assertions that the sky is falling. What I have seen is some benchmarks which purport to show that Python performs poorly compared to Bart's custom language, which he describes as "dynamic", and Bart trying to understand the design decisions which lead to this poor performance. In fact, Bart even described one of those benchmarks as demonstrating that Python was fast enough to be usable for typical tasks he performs (albeit at the slow end of usable), so I believe that he is writing them in good faith. >> I'll ask everyone to please give Bart the benefit of the doubt and >> assume good faith. > > Bart is continuing to demonstrate *bad* faith by showing un-idiomatic > Python code in support of his claims about how bad Python is, while > simultaneously being confessedly ignorant about idiomatic Python. Idiomatic like this example from the standard library? https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/2.7/Lib/shlex.py I do not believe that unfamiliarity with a language is prima facie evidence of bad faith, and I do not believe that it is reasonable for us to demand that programmers spend months or years learning all the idioms of a language before judging whether or not it is fast enough for the types of tasks they plan to use it for. There are many users of Python, of many varying degrees of skill and knowledge, and they don't always write what experts will call "idiomatic" code. In the real world, people will write unidiomatic code. Don't you think it would be good if Python was as fast as it could be even if your code was less than perfect? Besides, nobody has demonstrated that re-writing Bart's code would make it significantly faster. Maybe it will double the speed. Maybe it will improve times by 10%. Or maybe it won't make any real difference. > 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 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? I mean, honestly, Bart has written some code to read text from a file and parse it, found it is slow, and some people are rejecting the results because he's unwisely suppressed tracebacks using bare excepts. How does this invalidate his results? If you change the "except" to "except IOError", will that magically speed up the script by a factor of five? I don't think so. We all know that Python can be quite slow, and the Python community has many work-arounds for this fact, most of which come down to "write the slow bits in C". Look how much of the standard library is either written in C or thin wrappers around C: the builtins themselves, math, decimal, array, binascii, bisect, pickle, datetime, itertools, heapq and more. There's even an entire module designed to let you call C functions from within Python: https://docs.python.org/3/library/ctypes.html (Jython and IronPython don't have anything like this, but instead they have interfaces for calling Java and .Net code.) In some ways, Python could be considered a wrapper around C, and perhaps even when that's not entirely accurate, it is good to remember that Python started off as a glue language for C and Fortran libraries. I think Bart is perfectly entitled to carry on investigating the speed of Python using the styles of coding he is used to, and compare it to his own language. If this group was half as welcoming and friendly as we like to tell ourselves we are, we'd be helping him to write more idiomatic code, which hopefully will be faster, but realistically may not be, not telling him to bugger off until he's learnt more Python, not dismissing his benchmarks as invalid because they're not idiomatic, and especially not sneering at him for a few poor coding choices in a script which is prominently flagged at the top of the file as "buggy" and not for production use. -- Steven
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 16:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncp8kn$r7j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105369 |
On 21/03/2016 16:30, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016 06:47 pm, Ben Finney wrote: > >> Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> writes: >> >>> On Monday 21 March 2016 13:11, Ben Finney wrote: >>>> Please, stop making assertions about Python code until you have >>>> learned Python. >>> >>> I don't see how "I don't have a clue about exceptions" is an assertion >>> about Python code. >> >> That's not the assertion. I'm asking Bart to acknowledge that, because >> of the ignorance he admits to above, he should not be making elsewhere >> the sky-is-falling assertions about Python's failings. > > I haven't seen these assertions that the sky is falling. What I have seen is > some benchmarks which purport to show that Python performs poorly compared > to Bart's custom language, which he describes as "dynamic", and Bart trying > to understand the design decisions which lead to this poor performance. > > In fact, Bart even described one of those benchmarks as demonstrating that > Python was fast enough to be usable for typical tasks he performs (albeit > at the slow end of usable), so I believe that he is writing them in good > faith. Yes, on my machine even Python 3 can apparently tokenise C at around 40K lines per second. But this varies depending on the density of the source. On other inputs, it might achieve over 50Klps. And this was the slowest of the Pythons tested; others will be faster. My machine isn't the fastest either. So, even though this test only does the lowest level of tokenising (the next steps are doing name lookups, and then actual parsing), I think it is quite practical to use Python in tasks like this. (Note that my gcc C compiler can only compile at 2-5 Klps, peaking at 12Klps with input in one large. Compared to that, the Python timing isn't too bad.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Finney <ben+python@benfinney.id.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 17:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.29.1458713374.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105369 |
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. -- \ “… one of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was | `\ that, lacking zero, they had no way to indicate successful | _o__) termination of their C programs.” —Robert Firth | Ben Finney
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 10:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nctrak$rbh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105515 |
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).
A couple of years ago I had a project which tried to use a universal
syntax to express algorithms, and translating it into various languages.
The following code was generated for Python.
(/This/ is also quite a good way of learning a language, by figuring out
how to implement a specific feature in one language, in another. Another
way is to try and implement it...)
'N-Sieve' benchmark:
# Python source output
import sys
import math
import copy
def nsieve(m):
flags = ([1]*(m+1))
count = 0
for i in range(3,m+1):
if flags[i]:
count += 1
j = (i+i)
while (j<=m):
if flags[j]:
flags[j] = 0
j = (j+i)
sys.stdout.write(str("Primes up to "))
sys.stdout.write(str(m))
sys.stdout.write(str(": "))
sys.stdout.write(str(count))
sys.stdout.write("\n")
return count
def start():
nsieve(5120000)
nsieve(2560000)
nsieve(1280000)
start()
(The sys writes are used as it was easier than figuring out how to
reliably control spacing and newlines using 'print'. The m+1's I think
are there because the algorithm I used was 1-based).
In the case of this project, the source syntax was intended as a wrapper
around actual Python; it was not a language in its own right. (Although,
these simple benchmarks could generate Python, Lua or Lisp from the
exact same source. I know zilch about Lisp, except what I had to figure
out to make this work, and which I promptly forgot again. But the
resulting code ran perfectly!)
But I'd be more interesting now in translating another actual language
to Python. Now, the resulting Python is likely to be low-quality, with
extra code needed to match the source semantics. Then performance could
well be a factor not entirely offset by the novelty of watching Python
flawlessly execute a program not written in Python.
> 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.
Someone could be interested in cars, mechanics and performance without
wanting to know the most Pythonic way to get from Kings Cross to Heathrow.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 21:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.45.1458730161.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105533 |
On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > ... which even I could tell, from knowing what goes on behind the scenes, > wasn't going to work well ... > ... >> 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. > > > Someone could be interested in cars, mechanics and performance without > wanting to know the most Pythonic way to get from Kings Cross to Heathrow. But if I complain that the trek across four blocks of London cost me ninety minutes and my train ticket (which I then had to get replaced), you would blame it on me getting lost, rather than accepting my assertion that London's slow to get around. And if you said "hey, take a bus or a taxi next time", and I next time walked and got lost again, you would rightly call me a fool. And if I then had the audacity to say that London's streets are badly designed, because I looked at them and even without knowing what sort of traffic goes on them, I can tell that those are slow roads... you'd have very little respect for my statements about London. It wouldn't matter if I'm the world's greatest expert on hiking from Adelaide to Perth; it wouldn't matter how many nuances of Nullarbor sand I'm familiar with, nor how best to find drinking water there. I clearly know nothing about London, and my complaints about the city should be taken with a grain of salt, until such time as I put in the effort to get to know YOUR city YOUR way. (Events depicted in this work are entirely fictional and have no basis in reality. Really. Really truly. Anyway, I only got lost once.) ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 13:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncu691$4aq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105537 |
On 23/03/2016 10:48, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 9:34 PM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: >> Someone could be interested in cars, mechanics and performance without >> wanting to know the most Pythonic way to get from Kings Cross to Heathrow. > > But if I complain that the trek across four blocks of London cost me > ninety minutes and my train ticket (which I then had to get replaced), > you would blame it on me getting lost, rather than accepting my > assertion that London's slow to get around. And if you said "hey, take > a bus or a taxi next time", and I next time walked and got lost again, > you would rightly call me a fool. And if I then had the audacity to > say that London's streets are badly designed, because I looked at them > and even without knowing what sort of traffic goes on them, I can tell > that those are slow roads... you'd have very little respect for my > statements about London. It wouldn't matter if I'm the world's > greatest expert on hiking from Adelaide to Perth; it wouldn't matter > how many nuances of Nullarbor sand I'm familiar with, nor how best to > find drinking water there. I clearly know nothing about London, and my > complaints about the city should be taken with a grain of salt, until > such time as I put in the effort to get to know YOUR city YOUR way. To extend this analogy better, executing byte-code to directly perform a task itself might be equivalent to travelling on foot, while everyone is suggesting taking the bus, tube or taxi. But when you are on foot, it might be worth looking at what's slowing you down, or indeed at whether you are actually being slowed down at all. With walking it's easy because 3mph is typical, you'll know when something is obviously wrong (dragging or carrying a huge amount of baggage with you for example). Running byte-code is not so obvious. Interestingly, the typical difference between my byte-code and CPython's, is roughly the same as between (my) cycling and walking. With odd spots where CPython is quicker (which I'm investigating...). While PyPy can sometimes beat both of those, on a straight downhill section, but I suspect it cheats there a little by being motor-assisted. (FWIW, in central London usually I walk or cycle. I wouldn't walk from King's Cross to LHR, nearly 20 miles, unless I had nothing better to do, or there was no alternative.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <mailman.78.1458789868.2244.python-list@python.org> |
| In reply to | #105584 |
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:41 AM, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > To extend this analogy better, executing byte-code to directly perform a > task itself might be equivalent to travelling on foot, while everyone is > suggesting taking the bus, tube or taxi. > > But when you are on foot, it might be worth looking at what's slowing you > down, or indeed at whether you are actually being slowed down at all. With > walking it's easy because 3mph is typical, you'll know when something is > obviously wrong (dragging or carrying a huge amount of baggage with you for > example). Running byte-code is not so obvious. > It's easy to see that carrying five boxes of books will slow down you're walking *dramatically*. In fact, it's probably quicker to take just one of them, and then come back for another one, and so on. When you travel by car, it's much harder to measure the cost of the five boxes, but it made so much difference in walking time that you should probably take one box at a time, right? This is how you're currently evaluating Python. Instead of starting with the most simple and obvious code and refining from there, you're starting from a whole lot of preconceived ideas about what's "fast" or "slow", and assuming/expecting that they'll all still be valid. Many of them won't be, yet you still persist in doing things based on what you expect to be the case (because of what's fast/slow in C or some other language). We've explained this a number of times, and one by one, we're coming to the conclusion that you not only don't understand Python, you don't *want* to understand Python; and until you actually understand how the language works, timing stats are dubious. Do you understand why people aren't taking your results very seriously? ChrisA
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 20:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c79f34a8-a3b3-44df-8fab-de14e368925d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105585 |
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 8:54:49 AM UTC+5:30, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 12:41 AM, BartC wrote: > > To extend this analogy better, executing byte-code to directly perform a > > task itself might be equivalent to travelling on foot, while everyone is > > suggesting taking the bus, tube or taxi. > > > > But when you are on foot, it might be worth looking at what's slowing you > > down, or indeed at whether you are actually being slowed down at all. With > > walking it's easy because 3mph is typical, you'll know when something is > > obviously wrong (dragging or carrying a huge amount of baggage with you for > > example). Running byte-code is not so obvious. > > > > It's easy to see that carrying five boxes of books will slow down > you're walking *dramatically*. In fact, it's probably quicker to take > just one of them, and then come back for another one, and so on. When > you travel by car, it's much harder to measure the cost of the five > boxes, but it made so much difference in walking time that you should > probably take one box at a time, right? > > This is how you're currently evaluating Python. Instead of starting > with the most simple and obvious code and refining from there, you're > starting from a whole lot of preconceived ideas about what's "fast" or > "slow", and assuming/expecting that they'll all still be valid. Many > of them won't be, yet you still persist in doing things based on what > you expect to be the case (because of what's fast/slow in C or some > other language). We've explained this a number of times, and one by > one, we're coming to the conclusion that you not only don't understand > Python, you don't *want* to understand Python; and until you actually > understand how the language works, timing stats are dubious. > > Do you understand why people aren't taking your results very seriously? Terry recommended a. re module b. array lookup c. dict lookup Putting aside Bart's objection to re module for the moment, he has already posted a list-lookup version. In effect he has complied with the suggestions of experienced members of this list (in this case a python-dev) Can I request you (Bart) to re-post these data?? - if-else - list-lookup - dict-lookup
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web