Static typing [was Re: Python and the need for speed]

Steve D'Aprano steve+python at pearwood.info
Sun Apr 16 22:04:47 EDT 2017


On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 05:16 am, bartc wrote:

> But it was OK for Steve to 'win' the benchmark by substituting my test
> code with something only vaguely related, and much simpler?

Okay, you're now being obnoxious, and telling lies about me.

What I said was 

"FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH [emphasis added], on my machine (2GB RAM and 1.2GHz
CPU) I can add up 100 million ints in 14 seconds"

which is just to give an indication of the speed of my machine. I wasn't
trying to "win" your stupid, inefficient benchmark. If I was, would I then
have run *your code* and report a time nearly three times longer than you?

"time taken: 93.543194 seconds"

How is this me winning by running different code?

You also ignored the entire point of my post, which is to comment on
Justin's generator version:

"If I can run Bart's test on my slow old computer in a minute and a half, my
guess is that your generator must have been doing something terribly wrong
to still not be complete after six minutes."

and misrepresent me as doing something underhanded and dishonorable
to "win".

And that, Bart, is dirty pool. I don't think you're arguing in good faith.

I've spent months defending your right to criticise Python on this forum
even when others have wanted you banned (an excessive reaction) or have
kill-filed you so they don't see your posts. Even when I disagree with your
conclusions, even if I think they are terribly naive, the sorts of things a
lone cowboy developer can get away with but not suitable for a mature,
widely used language like Python, I've respected your point of view.

But at this point, I think *you* are being dishonest.




-- 
Steve
“Cheer up,” they said, “things could be worse.” So I cheered up, and sure
enough, things got worse.



More information about the Python-list mailing list