The lack of a case against Python 3

Re:The lack of a case against Python 3 by vuanotinn on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @05:04AM (#13062068)

I can make a case against 3: it's even slower than 2.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The lack of a case against Python 3 by ubernostrum on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @05:28AM (#13062165)

3.0 was, yes, because some significant new bits weren't yet implemented in C.

Python 3.3 caught it back up to, and started to exceed, 2.7 on benchmarks. And the gap is only going to grow as the 3.x series improves and the 2.x series lies stagnant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The lack of a case against Python 3 by pja on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @05:23AM (#13062142)

Yeah, but if you’re programming in Python then speed isn’t exactly high on your language feature priority list is it?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The lack of a case against Python 3 by dom0 on Tuesday November 29, 2016 @09:37AM (#13063251)

Performance and choice of language has in most cases no correlation at all.

[ Parent | on HN ]