On 24/06/2018 15:46, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2018 at 8:40 PM, Steven D'Aprano
<steve+comp.lang.pyt...@pearwood.info> wrote:
On Sun, 24 Jun 2018 11:18:37 +0100, Bart wrote:
I wonder why it is just me that constantly needs to justify his
existence in this group?
Because its just you who spends 90% of his time here complaining about
how Python does it wrong.
... and spends 95% of that time demonstrating his utter lack of
understanding of how Python does it at all. It's wrong even though you
don't understand how it actually works.
More like utter disbelief at how it works. Surely it cannot work like
that because it would be too inefficient? Apparently, yes it can...
And all to support extreme dynamism which is only really needed a tiny
proportion of the time (feel free to correct me).
I know I'm going to get flak for bringing this up this old issue, but
remember when you used to write a for-loop and it involved creating an
actual list of N integers from 0 to N-1 in order to iterate through
them? Crazy.
But that has long been fixed - or so I thought. When I wrote, today:
for i in range(100000000): pass # 100 million
on Python 2, it used up 1.8GB, up to the limit of my RAM, and it took
several minutes to regain control of my machine (and it never did
finish). You don't expect that in 2018 when executing a simple empty loop.
On Py 2 you have to use xrange for large ranges - that was the fix.
Somebody however must have had to gently and tactfully point out the
issue. I'm afraid I'm not very tactful.
--
bart
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
