Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009)

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by viraptor on Monday January 09, 2017 @12:23AM (#13354204)

~4.5 times faster with comprehension.

    In [11]: timeit.timeit('''list(filter(lambda x : ('widgets' in x), mixed_widgets))[0]['widgets']''', '''nw={'abc': 'def'};w={'widgets':'s'};mixed_widgets=[nw]*100+[w]+[nw]*100''', number=100000)
    Out[11]: 2.6956532129988773

    In [12]: timeit.timeit('''[x for x in mixed_widgets if 'widgets' in x][0]['widgets']''', '''nw={'abc': 'def'};w={'widgets':'s'};mixed_widgets=[nw]*100+[w]+[nw]*100''', number=100000)
    Out[12]: 0.5911771030077944

But not generating the list at all is still going to be faster (with bigger gains for bigger data)

    In [13]: timeit.timeit('''next(x for x in mixed_widgets if 'widgets' in x)['widgets']''', '''nw={'abc': 'def'};w={'widgets':'s'};mixed_widgets=[nw]*100+[w]+[nw]*100''', number=100000)
    Out[13]: 0.3324074839911191

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by m_mueller on Monday January 09, 2017 @12:49AM (#13354298)

I guess my next question is then - why is anyone using filter/map instead of comprehensions or even generator expressions? Familiarity when coming from FP?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by clusmore on Monday January 09, 2017 @01:07AM (#13354361)

Well, for one I believe they pre-date comprehensions. Having them as functions is also occasionally useful for partial application, e.g.

  from functools import partial
  to_strings = partial(map, str)
  # vs
  def to_strings(seq):
      return (str(elem) for elem in seq)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by m_mueller on Monday January 09, 2017 @01:20AM (#13354423)

I can see it together with partial, yes, that's when it can become a bit cleaner. Another reason why I use map is when I want to use multiprocessing or multithreading (with IO heavy functions). But on a fine grained level of code I find it really hurts readability compared to comprehensions.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by EvilTerran on Monday January 09, 2017 @07:39AM (#13355895)

Or this:

    def to_strings(seq):
        return map(str, seq)

Generally, when the operation I'm applying to each element happens to already be a named function, I find "map(f, seq)" preferable to "(f(x) for x in seq)".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by pmontra on Monday January 09, 2017 @07:39AM (#13355897)

Coming from Ruby it's easier to use map, because it's what Ruby's standard library offers.

However comprehensions are not that harder when one finally decides to understand how they work. Not as readable as map() IMHO. Example:

Ruby

    [1, 2, 3].map {|x| x*x} # object.method(args)

vs Python

    [x*x for x in [1, 2, 3]]

where we have the function first, then the definition of the variable, then the data. This is the opposite of the object.method OO notation and using a variable before defining it is not what we usually do. But it's almost the usual mathematical notation "for i in set do f(i)" with the function at the beginning.

Not a big deal.

About a problem raised in a comment of the post (which is from 2009): this is Guido (2009) about the lack of tail call optimization in Python http://neopythonic.blogspot.it/2009/04/tail-recursion-elimin...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Origins of Python's “Functional” Features (2009) by viraptor on Monday January 09, 2017 @12:54AM (#13354312)

In my experience filter/map are used by people who just don't know about comprehensions, or are not used to having them available. It takes some time to start using them where properly.

[ Parent | on HN ]