On 27 January 2016 at 03:35, Sven R. Kunze <srku...@mail.de> wrote: > I completely agree with INADA. > > It's like saying, because a specific crossroad features a higher accident > rate, people need to change their driving behavior. > No! People won't change and it's not necessary either. The crossroad needs > to be changed to be safer.
Umm, no, that's not how this works - developers contribute to community driven projects for their *own* reasons. Nobody gets to tell them what to do unless they're paying them. Micro-optimising a poor algorithm won't deliver macro level improvements because macro level code uses things like space-speed trade-offs to improve the algorithmic efficiency (as in the example of applying functools.lru_cache to a naive recursive fibonacci implementation). Victor's work on FAT optimiser is interesting because it offers opportunities to speed up even code that is already algorithmically efficient, as well as making CPython a better platform for experimenting with those kinds of changes. More generally though, much larger opportunities for improvement lie in persuading people to *stop writing code*, and instead spending more of their time on finding and assembling code other people have *already written* into solutions to interesting problems. *That's* the kind of improvement that turns enormously complex problems like facial recognition into 25 line Python scripts: https://realpython.com/blog/python/face-recognition-with-python/ Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
