Blog "about python 3"

[wxjmfauth at gmail.com]

Le samedi 4 janvier 2014 15:17:40 UTC+1, Chris Angelico a écrit :
> On Sun, Jan 5, 2014 at 12:55 AM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
> 
> > In article <mailman.4882.1388808283.18130.python-list at python.org>,
> 
> >  Mark Lawrence <breamoreboy at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> >> Surely everybody prefers fast but incorrect code in
> 
> >> preference to something that is correct but slow?
> 
> >
> 
> > I realize I'm taking this statement out of context, but yes, sometimes
> 
> > fast is more important than correct.  Sometimes the other way around.
> 
> 
> 
> More usually, it's sometimes better to be really fast and mostly
> 
> correct than really really slow and entirely correct. That's why we
> 
> use IEEE floating point instead of Decimal most of the time. Though
> 
> I'm glad that Python 3 now deems the default int type to be capable of
> 
> representing arbitrary integers (instead of dropping out to a separate
> 
> long type as Py2 did), I think it's possibly worth optimizing small
> 
> integers to machine words - but mainly, the int type focuses on
> 
> correctness above performance, because the cost is low compared to the
> 
> benefit. With float, the cost of arbitrary precision is extremely
> 
> high, and the benefit much lower.
> 
> 
> 
> With Unicode, the cost of perfect support is normally seen to be a
> 
> doubling of internal memory usage (UTF-16 vs UCS-4). Pike and Python
> 
> decided that the cost could, instead, be a tiny measure of complexity
> 
> and actually *less* memory usage (compared to UTF-16, when lots of
> 
> identifiers are ASCII). It's a system that works only when strings are
> 
> immutable, but works beautifully there. Fortunately Pike doesn't have
> 
> any, and Python has only one, idiot like jmf who completely
> 
> misunderstands what's going on and uses microbenchmarks to prove
> 
> obscure points... and then uses nonsense to try to prove... uhh...
> 
> actually I'm not even sure what, sometimes. I wouldn't dare try to
> 
> read his posts except that my mind's already in a rather broken state,
> 
> as a combination of programming and Alice in Wonderland.
> 


I do not mind to be considered as an idiot, but
I'm definitively not blind.

And I could add, I *never* saw once one soul, who is
explaining what I'm doing wrong in the gazillion
of examples I gave on this list.

---

Back to ReportLab. Technically I would be really
interested to see what could happen at the light
of my previous post.

jmf