On 03/24/2016 04:18 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote: > On 24/03/2016 19:54, BartC wrote: >> On 24/03/2016 18:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote: >>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:01 am, BartC wrote: >> >>> >>> Then those numbers are pointless. >> >> Yes, they would need some adjustment to do this stuff properly. > > Please give up before you get sued by the families of the people who > have died laughing.
Mark, please stop with the disparaging remarks. Just ignore this thread since it bother's you so much. Whether or not you or anyone else disagrees with Bart's programming techniques, his use of Python, or anything else, this is no excuse for name disparaging remarks. If Bart doesn't wish to learn whatever it is you wish to teach, that's his problem. I know you're a long-time poster to this list, but your comments of late have been getting a bit inflammatory. I am a bit amazed that Bart is still willing to communicate on this list after the flack he's got from you and a couple of others. I applaud Steve's voice of reason from time to time on this thread. I've been trying to follow things on this thread, and I understand a bit about Pythonic ideomatic style and I know what Python is really good at and some of what it's not so good at, but it seems like one of Bart's original contentions was that given a certain problem, coded in a non-pythonic way, got slower under Python 3 than it was under Python 2 (if I recall correctly). In other words a performance regression. Somehow this seems to have gotten lost in the squabble over how one should use Python. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
