On 6/24/2018 11:39 AM, Bart wrote:
Bart, I agree that people should not dogpile onto you. As with Rick, I
read your posts or not, depending on whether I feel like being
entertained at the moment, and usually move on without comment.
I know I'm going to get flak for bringing this up this old issue,
"Getting flak" is apparently your goal. This is called trolling.
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.
Yep. We first fixed it in a backward compatible way, then in a code
breaking way. The second fix got some rough and rude flak: "This is the
end of Python!!!"
But that has long been fixed - or so I thought.
You thought right.
When I wrote, today:
using an ancient version of Python,
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.
And you don't get that when you use a 2018 version of Python, or even
the newer 2008 version (3.0.0). Are you really unaware of that?
On Py 2 you have to use xrange for large ranges - that was the fix.
Yep. This was the backward compatible fix. So what is your point?
Somebody however must have had to gently and tactfully point out the
issue.
For all I know, the craziness of the original design may have prompted
some rough and rude comments *BEFORE IT WAS FIXED*. Possibly ditto for
the clutziness of the fix -- *BEFORE THE FIX WAS FIXED*.
I'm afraid I'm not very tactful.
The above seems politely worded to me. It is just 20 and 10 years too
late, and completely pointless, unless 'flak' is your goal.
--
Terry Jan Reedy
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
