2 ms·

Please check the context, I was comparing to Python. And please chill out. It's only "dangerous" when you decide to run it that way.

• masklinn 4y ago
  [flagged]
  • klyrs 4y ago
    Hi, no need to be so abrasive about it. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. Python's zip function returns a generator. A generator in zig would look like a function pointer with a closure. If zig were to implement the Python-style "zip" function, constructing the closure, and iterating over the generator, would be significantly slower than the naked "just a for loop" that we see in TFA. And that's not even considering the tuple construction (oops, now we need an allocator) & unpacking. Ergo, the zig-style "syntactical zip" is higher performance than the Python-style "functional zip". Even when you cut through the baseline performance differences between the languages.
    • masklinn 4y ago
      > Hi, no need to be so abrasive about it. That's just projection. > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith. I'll get right on that as soon as you extend the same courtesy, which you have refused to do at every opportunity.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]