syntax difference
Terry Reedy
tjreedy at udel.edu
Sun Jun 24 14:58:12 EDT 2018
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
More information about the Python-list
mailing list