On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 1:57 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
> > I don't really see the point. In my experience there is no benefit to
> > removing assert statements in production mode. This is a C-specific
> > notion that doesn't really map very well to Python code. Do other
> > high-level languages
> I don't really see the point. In my experience there is no benefit to
> removing assert statements in production mode. This is a C-specific
> notion that doesn't really map very well to Python code. Do other
> high-level languages have similar functionality?
It's not at all C specific. C# also
Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Do other high-level languages have similar functionality?
Parrot (does anyone actually use Parrot?) has a byte-code optimizer.
javac -O is supposed to emit optimized byte-code, but allegedly it is a no-op.
On the other hand, the Java ecosystem includes third-party Java
On Fri, 15 Jun 2012 06:38:45 +1000
Steven D'Aprano wrote:
>
> Apart from the duplication of effort (everyone who wants to optimize their
> code has to write their own source-code strip tool),
Actually, it could be shipped with Python, or even done dynamically at
runtime (instead of relying on s
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
On 14 June 2012 11:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
Honestly, I think the best option would be to deprecate .pyo files as
well as the useless -O option. They only cause confusion without
providing any significant benefits.
+1
But what happens to __debug__ and assert stateme
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:14:59 -0400
"R. David Murray" wrote:
>
> What does matter though is the memory savings. I'm working with an
> application where the difference between normal and -OO is around a 10%
> savings (about 2MB) in program DATA size at startup, and that makes a
> difference for an
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:14:54 +0200, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:58:16 +0100
> Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> > On 14 June 2012 11:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > > Honestly, I think the best option would be to deprecate .pyo files as
> > > well as the useless -O option. They only ca
On Thu, 14 Jun 2012 12:58:16 +0100
Floris Bruynooghe wrote:
> On 14 June 2012 11:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> > Honestly, I think the best option would be to deprecate .pyo files as
> > well as the useless -O option. They only cause confusion without
> > providing any significant benefits.
>
> +1
On 14 June 2012 11:25, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
> Honestly, I think the best option would be to deprecate .pyo files as
> well as the useless -O option. They only cause confusion without
> providing any significant benefits.
+1
But what happens to __debug__ and assert statements? I think it
should
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:36:55 -0700
Ethan Furman wrote:
>
> Currently, the alternative to supporting this behavior is to either:
>
>1) require the end-user to specify -O (major nuisance)
>
>or
>
>2) have the distributor rename the .pyo file to .pyc
>
> I think 1 is a non-starter (n
10 matches
Mail list logo
