> "Ilpo" == Ilpo NyyssÃnen writes:
Ilpo> Pickle doesn't have validation. I am not comfortable for
Ilpo> using it as storage format that should be reliable over
Ilpo> years when the program evolves. It also doesn't tell me if
That's why you should implement xml import/export mecha
> > At least the interface looks quite simple and usable. With some
> > validation wrapping over it, it might be ok...
>
> I was going to point you to a validating parser for ET, but the "it might
> be ok" statement is a bit too arrogant for my taste.
I'll point you all to *two* validating parser
Ilpo Nyyssönen wrote:
> What is the point in doing validation if it isn't done every time? Why
> wouldn't I do it every time? It isn't that slow thing to do.
DTD validation is useful in two cases: making sure that data from
a foreign source has the right structure, and making sure that data
you c
[reorganized a bit]
Ville Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Why don't you use external validation on the created xml? Validating
> it every time sounds like way too much like Javaic B&D to be fun
> anymore. Pickle should serve you well, and would probably remove about
> half of your code. "Do
> "Ilpo" == Ilpo NyyssÃnen writes:
>> so you picked the wrong file format for the task, and the slowest
Ilpo> What would you recommend instead?
Ilpo> I have searched alternatives, but somehow I still find XML
Ilpo> the best there is. It is a standard format with standard
"Fredrik Lundh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> so you picked the wrong file format for the task, and the slowest
> tool you could find for that file format, and instead of fixing
> that, you decided that the regular expression engine was to blame
> for the bad performance. hmm.
What would you reco
On Thursday 21 April 2005 09:01 am, codecraig wrote:
> I am interested in regular expressions and how Perl and Python
> compare. Particulary, I am interested in performance (i.e. speed),
> memory usage, flexibility, completeness (i.e. supports simple and
> complex regex operations...basically is
> "Ilpo" == Ilpo NyyssÃnen writes:
Ilpo> Of course it caches those when running. The point is that it
Ilpo> needs to recompile every time you have restarted the
Ilpo> program. With short lived command line programs this really
Ilpo> can be a problem.
I didn't imagine it could
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ilpo Nyyssönen) wrote:
> Of course it caches those when running. The point is that it needs to
> recompile every time you have restarted the program. With short lived
> command line programs this really can be a problem.
Are you speculating that it might be a problem, or saying
Ville Vainio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> "Ilpo" == Ilpo Nyyssönen writes:
>
> Ilpo> The problem in python here is that it needs to always
> Ilpo> recompile the regexp. I would like to have a way to write a
> Ilpo> regexp as a constant and then python should compile that
> I
> "Ilpo" == Ilpo NyyssÃnen writes:
Ilpo> James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Is it relevant that Python can produce compiled expressions? I
>> don't think that there is such a thing with Perl.
Ilpo> The problem in python here is that it needs to always
Ilpo> reco
James Stroud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it relevant that Python can produce compiled expressions? I don't think
> that there is such a thing with Perl.
The problem in python here is that it needs to always recompile the
regexp. I would like to have a way to write a regexp as a constant and
Thanks for the input. I was just looking for some feedback about which
was better and faster, if an answer exists. However, I am not choosing
Perl or Python b/c of it's RegEx engine as someone mentioned. The
question was just because I was curious, sorry if I misled you to think
I was choosing w
Terry Reedy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Depending upon you particular application, 'completeness' may be a
> more relevant concern than 'performance'. I believe the original
> Python regex engine did not have all the Perl extensions, some of them
> decidedly 'non regular'. It was replace by the
"codecraig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I am interested in regular expressions and how Perl and Python
> compare. Particulary, I am interested in performance (i.e. speed),
> memory usage, flexibility, completeness (i.e. supports simple and
> complex regex oper
Is it relevant that Python can produce compiled expressions? I don't think
that there is such a thing with Perl.
Also, to all of the dozen or so people in the world less wise than me about
programming: don't choose your language on how fast the regex engine is. This
would then become a case of
"djw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> While I agree with (most of) your points, one should not overlook the
> fact that there are cases when performance does matter (huge datasets
> maybe?). Since the OP didn't indicate why performance was important to
> him/her, o
"codecraig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I found some benchmarking (perhaps simple) but search for "The Great
> Computer language shootout" look at the original shootout and the
> win32 one.
>
> Thomas:
> "I doubt the total execution time for all the RegEx queri
I found some benchmarking (perhaps simple) but search for "The Great
Computer language shootout" look at the original shootout and the
win32 one.
Thomas:
"I doubt the total execution time for all the RegEx queries you ever
ran took
as much time as you just wasted on your little experiment. " .
Thomas Bartkus wrote:
"codecraig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well so far from what I have found, Perl is faster than Python for
RegEx, although perl is harder to read.
Yawn
How about Python being easier to *write*?
It never ceases to amaze me. It takes days, week
Paul McGuire wrote:
I'd be very interested to see if there actually is a benchmark suite
for regexp's. I imagine that this could be an easy area for quite a
varied set of results, depending on the expression features included in
the actual regexp being tested, and even the nature of the input text
"codecraig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Well so far from what I have found, Perl is faster than Python for
> RegEx, although perl is harder to read.
Yawn
How about Python being easier to *write*?
It never ceases to amaze me. It takes days, weeks, months, somet
I'd be very interested to see if there actually is a benchmark suite
for regexp's. I imagine that this could be an easy area for quite a
varied set of results, depending on the expression features included in
the actual regexp being tested, and even the nature of the input text.
For example, a sim
"codecraig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Well so far from what I have found, Perl is faster than Python for
RegEx, although perl is harder to read.
is this based on actual benchmarks, or just what people are saying on
the intarweb?
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Well so far from what I have found, Perl is faster than Python for
RegEx, although perl is harder to read.
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
25 matches
Mail list logo
