3 ms·
I don't accept that. In the referenced article you're pulling in stuff which I believe is written in a different language (probably C). If you use native python
by _a_a_a_ 3y ago
I don't accept that. In the referenced article you're pulling in stuff which I believe is written in a different language (probably C). If you use native python, I'm sure you would accept it would be much slower and take up much more memory. So we have to disagree here.
- dmezzetti 3y agoWhere do you draw the line? Most of CPython is written in C including the arrays package (https://docs.python.org/3/library/array.html https://docs.python.org/3/library/array.html) mentioned in that article. Yes, pure Python is slower and takes up more memory. But that doesn't mean it can't be productive and performant using these types of strategies to speed up where necessary.
- _a_a_a_ 3y agoWith respect, I think you're clouding things by trying to defend what is really defensible. Okay then. > Where do you draw the line? Drawing the line at native python, not pulling in packages that are written in another language. Packages written in python only are acceptable in this argument. > But that doesn't mean it can't be productive and performant using these types of strategies to speed up where necessary. No one said it couldn't. What we're saying is that it pure python is 'slow' and you need to escape from pure python to get the speedups.