On 2016-03-08 01:33, BartC wrote:
On 08/03/2016 01:23, Chris Angelico wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:00 PM, BartC <b...@freeuk.com> wrote:
Yes of course it does. As does 'being slow'. Take another microbenchmark:
def whiletest():
| i=0
| while i<=100000000:
| | i+=1
whiletest()
Python 2.7: 8.4 seconds
Python 3.1: 12.5 seconds
Python 3.4: 18.0 seconds
Even if you don't care about speed, you must admit that there appears to be
something peculiar going on here: why would 3.4 take more than twice as long
as 2.7? What do they keep doing to 3.x to cripple it on each new version?
How do your benchmarks compare on this code:
pass
Let me ask you a follow-on question first: how slow does a new Python
version have to be before even you would take notice?
Compared with 2.7, 3.4 above is spending nearly an extra ten seconds
doing .... what? I can't understand why someone just wouldn't care.
Part of it will be that Python 2 has 2 integer types: 'int' (fixed
length) and 'long' (variable length).
Originally, 'int' addition could overflow, but it was more friendly to
promote the result to 'long' instead.
Python 3 dropped 'int' and renamed 'long' to 'int'.
--
https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
