Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Pascal Costanza]

Matthias Blume wrote:

>>we both don't have the necessary empirical data to back our claims)
> 
> 
> Speak for yourself.

You too.


This:

 > I have worked on projects where people worried about *every cycle*.
  ^^^^^^^^

 > (Most of the time I agree with you, though.  Still, using infinite
 > precision by default is, IMO, a mistake.  Having it around and at your
                           ^^^^^^

 > fingertips, though, is nice.  That's why I added the long-missing
 > compiler support for IntInf to SML/NJ recently.)

is by any scientifical standard not enough evidence to back this:

> The problem
> is that for many algorithms people want to be sure that the compiler
> represents their values in machine words.  Infinite precision is
> needed sometimes, but in the majority of cases it is overkill.  If you
> need infinite precision, specify the type (IntInf.int in SML's case).
> A clever compiler might optimize that like a Lisp compiler does.  In
> most other cases, why take any chances?


Pascal