Good morning Tim,
Tim Peters:
> Peter, what would you say if someone told you your Python programs would
> run, oh, 30% faster, but in return for that you could no longer rely on
> refcount semantics?
Personally I wouldn't go for that trade. Waiting three or four more
months and buying new hardware usually gives the same speedup anyway.
What really matters is programmer time, not program run time.
At least most of the time.
When I started programming (with punch cards 25 yrs ago) the
situation was clearly different. But today? Computing power is so
incredible cheap today...
> What do you think *most* people would say?
[...]
Hard to say.
But I believe people looking at Python are more interested in
programmer productivity than in highly optimized performance.
And don't having to worry about tedious and clumsy cleanup actions
is an undeniable win in programmer productivity. This win is
twofold:
1. you don't have to check, whether the objects provide a close()
or a destroy() method.
2. you don't have to invent silly names for these otherwise
anonymous objects.
Regards, Peter
--
Peter Funk, Oldenburger Str.86, D-27777 Ganderkesee, Germany, Fax:+49 4222950260
office: +49 421 20419-0 (ArtCom GmbH, Grazer Str.8, D-28359 Bremen)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4