On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 08:57, Greg Ewing <greg.ewing at canterbury.ac.nz>wrote: > Nick Coghlan wrote: > > Personally, I *like* CPython fitting into the "simple-and-portable" >> niche in the Python interpreter space. >> > > Me, too! I like that I can read the CPython source and > understand what it's doing most of the time. Please don't > screw that up by attempting to perform heroic optimisations. > > -- > Following this argument to the extreme, the bytecode evaluation code of CPython can be simplified quite a bit. Lose 2x performance but gain a lot of readability. Does that sound like a good deal? I don't intend to sound sarcastic, just show that IMHO this argument isn't a good one. I think that even clever optimized code can be properly written and *documented* to make the task of understanding it feasible. Personally, I'd love CPython to be a bit faster and see no reason to give up optimization opportunities for the sake of code readability. Eli -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/attachments/20110830/dac9191a/attachment.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