On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 05:16 am, bartc wrote: > But it was OK for Steve to 'win' the benchmark by substituting my test > code with something only vaguely related, and much simpler?
Okay, you're now being obnoxious, and telling lies about me. What I said was "FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH [emphasis added], on my machine (2GB RAM and 1.2GHz CPU) I can add up 100 million ints in 14 seconds" which is just to give an indication of the speed of my machine. I wasn't trying to "win" your stupid, inefficient benchmark. If I was, would I then have run *your code* and report a time nearly three times longer than you? "time taken: 93.543194 seconds" How is this me winning by running different code? You also ignored the entire point of my post, which is to comment on Justin's generator version: "If I can run Bart's test on my slow old computer in a minute and a half, my guess is that your generator must have been doing something terribly wrong to still not be complete after six minutes." and misrepresent me as doing something underhanded and dishonorable to "win". And that, Bart, is dirty pool. I don't think you're arguing in good faith. I've spent months defending your right to criticise Python on this forum even when others have wanted you banned (an excessive reaction) or have kill-filed you so they don't see your posts. Even when I disagree with your conclusions, even if I think they are terribly naive, the sorts of things a lone cowboy developer can get away with but not suitable for a mature, widely used language like Python, I've respected your point of view. But at this point, I think *you* are being dishonest. -- Steve “Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure enough, things got worse. -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
