__peter__ at web.de
Mon Aug 11 11:38:57 CEST 2008
M8R-n7vorv at mailinator.com wrote:
> On Aug 10, 10:10 pm, Kris Kennaway <k... at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>> jlist wrote:
>> > I think what makes more sense is to compare the code one most
>> > typically writes. In my case, I always use range() and never use psyco.
>> > But I guess for most of my work with Python performance hasn't been
>> > a issue. I haven't got to write any large systems with Python yet,
>> > where performance starts to matter.
>> Hopefully when you do you will improve your programming practices to not
>> make poor choices - there are few excuses for not using xrange ;)
> And can you shed some light on how that relates with one of the zens
> of python ?
> There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
For the record, the impact of range() versus xrange() is negligable -- on my
machine the xrange() variant even runs a tad slower. So it's not clear
whether Kris actually knows what he's doing.
For the cases where xrange() is an improvement over range() "Practicality
beats purity" applies. But you should really care more about the spirit
than the letter of the "zen".
More information about the Python-list