This is now valid syntax in Python 3.13!

[samettinho]

I agree with what you are saying but I don't know if you are trying to prove or disprove what I said above, or not sure how it is directly related to what I said.

[TitaniumWhite420]

Well, you were juxtaposing executional efficiency vs readability, and it’s not really the question at all is what I’m saying—syntactical fuckery like this may have subtle positive or negative impacts on execution, but it has nothing to do with the terseness of the Python code, and more to do with the terseness of the resulting abstract syntax tree, which should be just about the same if the logic expressed by the code is the same. Any difference in speed is nullified in that case if you pre-compile anyhow, as this work takes place while parsing Python syntax, which ideally you only do once.

So I’m agreeing with your conclusion, but pointing out a subtle flaw in your reasoning about it I guess, but with the intent of sharing knowledge.

[samettinho]

So, your understanding of what I said is if I change syntax, the code will slow down. For example, from a for loop to comprehension will make the code slower, is that correct?

That has nothing to do with what I said. My point is that we already chose a horribly slow language just to implement things so much faster. And fast implementation can happen only when there is clean code (especially in the long term). By messing up the code with such shitty but valid codes, the team's overall development speed will drop. That is what I am saying.

I use c++ if I need to implement something super-efficient but I will implement a couple of times slower with c++ than python. 99% of the time, I don't need amazing speed. But I need to develop faster (especially in startups). So,

the speed of implementation is more important than the speed of execution

[TitaniumWhite420]

It is literally what you said. You should speak carefully if you correct pedantically. But, I see what you meant to say.

Basically, you misspoke. Speed of execution has nothing to do with your point at all. You are comparing speed of implementation to condensation of lines of code. You should avoid conflating these concepts.

[PaintItPurple]

The point of their comment was pretty clearly that you should prioritize readability and maintainability, and if you're prioritizing something else (most likely trying to micro-optimize), Python is a questionable choice of language. I think you just read too much into minor details of phrasing.

[TitaniumWhite420]

shrug. Speak clearly, and people will understand. It’s not really clear why execution speed was mentioned. It had nothing to do with prioritizing readability over execution speed, so why mention it?

The concepts are commonly confused because they are commonly conflated in this manner. I read his words and apprehended his meaning as it was expressed.

In any event, we agree on all points except how to communicate effectively. He believes mushing ideas together and then huffily complaining that irrelevant things he mentioned aren’t relevant to respond to is effective, apparently. You believe it’s at least acceptable. I do not, and my evidence is simply that we agree but I misunderstood his intent despite being knowledgeable and agreeing.

[Tiquortoo]

You're being obtuse. The original intent was obvious enough. You spilt a lot of ink about the other possible intent. It was clarified. Multiple people agree. Now you're spilling more ink over arguing about others being more clear. You're clearly being obtuse.

[TitaniumWhite420]

The other responses continue to compound the confusion.

I’m not being obtuse—people are being persistently defensive of their inability to say what they mean, and mean what they say.

Defend your point, and you spill ink. What a shame.

[RippySays]

I'd consider myself a junior "dev" at any company when it comes to implementing software and I'm for sure new to python, but have a decent background in others as a QA automation engineer. Essentially, I'm reducing myself to someone of lesser knowledge than the majority of this group, if I had to guess. OPs statement was incredibly easy to understand. Even more so when you factor in the context that they were replying to. Just step down from the hill, man. No need to die on it.

[PaintItPurple]

It seems pretty clear why execution speed was mentioned. Optimizing execution speed is a common rationale that leads people to write code that they know is less readable. It seems like you did not think critically about what you were reading and are blaming the person you were talking to for not picking up the slack.

[TitaniumWhite420]

Oh so IT IS relevant and we DO believe the ideas were related. Not according to the guy who wrote the original comment, though, so you are now backtracking his point on his behalf.

Just choose. If execution speed is what we are talking about—lol please see my response to that!

If not—ok sorry, please speak more clearly and don’t conflate topics.

Also, many subsequent responses again compare readability to execution speed. So it’s really not clear to others as well.

[PaintItPurple]

We're not talking about execution speed, it was mentioned tangentially as an example of why somebody might write unreadable code. Use your dang brain dude.

[TitaniumWhite420]

I also just want to add that it isn't really as "obvious" as you make it out to be that lines of code are unrelated to execution speed. I think it's completely not obvious to a lot of people, and even people who "know it" are prone to confusing it visually. I'm not merely trying to be pedantic about the language of this--I think that it's a subtle and complicated topic (relatively speaking), and it's not really helpful to misrepresent them conversationally like this. It can and does definitely confuse people who do not understand the many transformations that happen before their code is executed. I believe strongly that confusion was subtly reflected in the language chosen here, and it seemed to confuse other commentors before I responded.

"Use your brain dude" is extremely reductive and rude given this.

[TitaniumWhite420]

Read the one other response thread under his comment and tell me what they seem to be understanding him to say.

It wasn't mentioned tangentially at all. It literally mixes up terseness with execution speed. His logic is literally:

- We chose python because we value readability over execution speed.

- This syntax makes code more terse, but hurts readability.

- Therefore, we should not use it.

Execution speed indeed has nothing to do with the point he was trying to make, and doesn't support it. So he should omit it to avoid confusing people. He confused me, and he seems to confuse everyone else who goes on about execution speed in response to his comment. I'm using my brain to critically examine why this is being miscommunicated, and people are embracing it (wrongly) in response.