On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100 > Michael Foord<fuzzyman at voidspace.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote: >>> Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip: >>>> Martin v. Löwis<martin<at> v.loewis.de> writes: >>>> >>>>> Does it actually need improvement? >>>> I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the better - albeit >>>> slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea of continuous >>>> improvement in general... >>> Hmm. I cannot believe in the notion of "continuous improvement"; I'd >>> guess that it is rather "continuous change". >>> >>> I can see three possible areas of improvment: >>> 1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON >>> is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to converge >>> to something fairly correct quickly. >>> 2. Performance: there is always room for performance improvements. >>> However, I strongly recommend to not bother unless a severe >>> bottleneck can be demonstrated. >> Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the >> standard library json module. > No. > Yes. > _______________________________________________ > Python-Dev mailing list > Python-Dev at python.org > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev > Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk -- http://www.voidspace.org.uk/ May you do good and not evil May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others May you share freely, never taking more than you give. -- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
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