On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:39 PM, John Immarino <joh...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Monday, February 18, 2013 2:58:57 PM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:55 AM, Chris Angelico <ros...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> How long did your BASIC version take, and how long did the Python >> >> >> version on the same hardware? >> >> > >> >> > Oops, my bad, you already posted the figures :) And I forgot to ask: >> >> > Which Python version didyou use? >> >> > >> >> > ChrisA >> >> >> >> Doh. I'm having a great day of not reading properly, today. (I blame >> >> checking mail on the bus, it took me over an hour to read this one >> >> message and I'd forgotten the subject line by the time I got to the >> >> end.) Python 3.3, right there in the header. Disregard me! >> >> >> >> ChrisA > > Thanks,Chris. I'm a newbie to Python and didn't realize that it's not as good > at number crunching as some of the others. It does seem to do better than > Basic with numbers in lists as opposed to arrays in Basic.
Yes, Python is excellent at data handling. I'll cheerfully use Python to manipulate huge lists or arrays, and its performance at that is usually well within the "good enough" range (for instance, anything that manipulates the file system will be waiting on my disks, not on Python). It's an excellent tool in the toolkit, just not the one solution to everything. (Nothing's that!) ChrisA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
