The Cost of Dynamism (was Re: Pyhon 2.x or 3.x, which is faster?)

[Michael Torrie]

On 03/24/2016 04:18 PM, Mark Lawrence wrote:
> On 24/03/2016 19:54, BartC wrote:
>> On 24/03/2016 18:10, Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>>> On Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:01 am, BartC wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Then those numbers are pointless.
>>
>> Yes, they would need some adjustment to do this stuff properly.
> 
> Please give up before you get sued by the families of the people who 
> have died laughing.

Mark, please stop with the disparaging remarks.  Just ignore this thread
since it bother's you so much.  Whether or not you or anyone else
disagrees with Bart's programming techniques, his use of Python, or
anything else, this is no excuse for name disparaging remarks.  If Bart
doesn't wish to learn whatever it is you wish to teach, that's his
problem. I know you're a long-time poster to this list, but your
comments of late have been getting a bit inflammatory.  I am a bit
amazed that Bart is still willing to communicate on this list after the
flack he's got from you and a couple of others.  I applaud Steve's voice
of reason from time to time on this thread.

I've been trying to follow things on this thread, and I understand a bit
about Pythonic ideomatic style and I know what Python is really good at
and some of what it's not so good at, but it seems like one of Bart's
original contentions was that given a certain problem, coded in a
non-pythonic way, got slower under Python 3 than it was under Python 2
(if I recall correctly).  In other words a performance regression.
Somehow this seems to have gotten lost in the squabble over how one
should use Python.