geremy condra, 27.07.2010 12:54:
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 8:17 AM, John Nagle wrote:
On 7/19/2010 9:56 AM, dhruvbird wrote:
On Jul 19, 9:12 pm, Brian Victor wrote:
dhruvbird wrote:
Having offered this, I don't recall ever seeing reduce used in real
python code, and explicit iteration is almost always preferred.
Yes, even I have noticed that reduce is a tad under-used function.
Yes, I had a use case for it once, but it wasn't worth the trouble.
"map" is often useful, but "reduce", not so much.
Python isn't really a functional language. There's no bias toward
functional solutions, lambdas aren't very general, and the performance
isn't any better. Nor is any concurrency provided by "map" or "reduce".
So there's no win in trying to develop cute one-liners.
Too bad about the lack of concurrency, would be many places where that
would be nice.
Besides the many places where the current properties match just fine, there
are some places where concurrency would be helpful. So I wouldn't call it
"lack" of concurrency, as that seems to imply that it's a missing feature
in what both builtins are targeted to provide. Just use one of the
map-reduce frameworks that are out there if you need concurrency in one way
or another. Special needs are not what builtins are there for.
Stefan
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
