Paul Rubin a écrit :
Bruno Desthuilliers <bruno.42.desthuilli...@websiteburo.invalid> writes:
Russ argument was about "good engineering", not about raw perfs. FWIW,
_you_ may be willing to trade dynamism for raw perfs, but there are
probably some people here that won't agree.
Obviously there will never be total unanimity about every tiny thing.
Indeed !-)
I haven't anywhere in this thread as far as I know suggested
eliminating dynamism from Python,
Nope, but your suggestion would have the same practical result as far as
I'm concerned.
which would be in "that's not Python
any more" territory. But, in the dozens of class definitions I write
in any given day of coding, I might use the dynamism we're talking
about in 1% of them at most.
Indeed : these are the classes _you_ (as a library author), write, so
they work as _you_ (as a user of these library) expect them to work.
If having to type a few extra keystrokes
on that 1% improves program reliabiity AND performance, it certainly
seems worth it to me.
If it makes simple thing overly complicated, it certainly seems _worse_
to me !-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
