On 17/04/2011 17:05, Michael Foord wrote:
On 17/04/2011 00:16, Antoine Pitrou wrote:
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 23:48:45 +0100
Michael Foord<fuzzy...@voidspace.org.uk> wrote:
On 16/04/2011 22:28, "Martin v. Löwis" wrote:
Am 16.04.2011 21:13, schrieb Vinay Sajip:
Martin v. Löwis<martin<at> v.loewis.de> writes:
Does it actually need improvement?
I can't actually say, but I assume it keeps changing for the
better - albeit
slowly. I wasn't thinking of specific improvements, just the idea
of continuous
improvement in general...
Hmm. I cannot believe in the notion of "continuous improvement"; I'd
guess that it is rather "continuous change".
I can see three possible areas of improvment:
1. Bugs: if there are any, they should clearly be fixed. However, JSON
is a simple format, so the implementation should be able to
converge
to something fairly correct quickly.
2. Performance: there is always room for performance improvements.
However, I strongly recommend to not bother unless a severe
bottleneck can be demonstrated.
Well, there was a 5x speedup demonstrated comparing simplejson to the
standard library json module.
No.
Yes.
Well, maybe not. :-)
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/fuzzyman%40voidspace.org.uk
--
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/
May you do good and not evil
May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others
May you share freely, never taking more than you give.
-- the sqlite blessing http://www.sqlite.org/different.html
_______________________________________________
Python-Dev mailing list
Python-Dev@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
