On May 4, 7:49 am, David <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > D compiles to efficient machine code so Python is at a disadvantage
> > > even if you use the same syntax (see my first example). You can make
> > > the Python version faster, but beware of premature optimization.
>
> > This time I don't
> > D compiles to efficient machine code so Python is at a disadvantage
> > even if you use the same syntax (see my first example). You can make
> > the Python version faster, but beware of premature optimization.
>
> This time I don't agree with this "premature optimization" thing. My
> origi
David:
> What do you mean by best possible? Most efficient? Most readable?
What's a good wine? It's not easy to define what's "good/best". In
such context it's a complex balance of correct, short, fast and
readable (and more, because you need to define a context. This context
refers to Psyco too)
advantage
even if you use the same syntax (see my first example). You can make
the Python version faster, but beware of premature optimization.
> I think Python 3.0 too may enjoy a similar strategy of light slices +
> COW for strings, lists and arrays (tuples and strings don't need the
> doesn't even create a slice object in the heap each time the outer
> foreach loops.
>
> One problem with this strategy is that if you have a huge string, and
> you keep only a little slice of it, the D garbage collector will keep
> it all in memory. To avoid that problem you h
nk Psyco in some situations is able to manage string slices
avoiding the copy.
I think Python 3.0 too may enjoy a similar strategy of light slices +
COW for strings, lists and arrays (tuples and strings don't need the
COW).
Bye,
bearophile
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
