Python optimization (was Python's "only one way to do it" philosophy isn't good?)
showell30 at yahoo.com
Mon Jun 11 05:47:26 CEST 2007
--- Kay Schluehr <kay.schluehr at gmx.net> wrote:
> On Jun 11, 12:43 am, Steve Howell
> <showel... at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > To the extent that some of these optimizations
> > be achieved by writing better Python code, it
> > nice for optimization tools to have a "suggest"
> Is anyone out there who uses MS Word and doesn't
> deactivate the
> "suggest" mode i.e. Clippy? Maybe someone shall
> write a lucid blog
> entry about the failure of "suggest" modes in
> general or point me to
> one. Autocompletion as a typing aid might be
> considered as a counter
> example but only because you don't really have a
> choice and will not
> be confronted with nonsensical AI guesses.
Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you
are wildly overinterpreting my use of the phrase
I was making the simple suggestion that code
optimizers could suggest opportunities for
optimization that the tools couldn't unilaterally
decide themselves to enforce.
In other words, there are scenarios where an automated
tool has to assume the extreme case of dynamicism,
when in fact I, the programmer, know that I'm writing
basically static code within Python, and I simply
forgot to pull a subexpression out of a loop.
Maybe you just need to rant about animated office
supplies every now and then.
And regarding autocompletion--yes, it's an extremely
Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center.
More information about the Python-list