Benoit Minisini wrote: > As I never used Python, I don't really realized how much an equivalent of > partition() is needed. To be honest, partition() doesn't do anything that can't be achieved using Split() or Scan(), only reason i used partition() in Python is because it is quite a bit faster than Python's Split() function.
Benoit Minisini wrote: > But if Scan() is slower than partition(), it does not mean necessarily > that > Python is faster than Gambas globally. For example, just iterating a void > loop 0..999999 takes 0,1s in Python, and 0,029s in Gambas 3. Naturally, i agree comparing a single function is not an accurate comparison. The reason i started this thread was because i was quite surprised that my Gambas function was so slow when i was expecting it to be significantly faster than Python. Benoit Minisini wrote: > If you want, I could make a partition() function temporarily just to > compare > exactly the same thing between Gambas and Python. Do you? It's not important, however i DO think that a "GetSubstring" style string function would be useful if written in C: CODE wrote: > s = Substring(mainstring, startstring, endstring) returns the substring > in between startstring and endstring within mainstring. Return is empty > string if not found. Perhaps it's just me, but i would use this function all of the time for parsing strings. I know that it's easily achieved using Split() or Scan() but they are perhaps not as efficient?? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Gambas-is-slower-than-Python---tp21521606p21531152.html Sent from the gambas-user mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net email is sponsored by: SourcForge Community SourceForge wants to tell your story. http://p.sf.net/sfu/sf-spreadtheword _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
