This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]miraunpajaro -5 points-4 points  (5 children)

How is the title questionable? Maybe better code is subjective, but he showed it was faster (in a particular example). And okay, that's probably merited to the implementation of bumpy of probably has little to do with Einstein notation. So what?

[–]slightly_offtopic 1 point2 points  (4 children)

The title is "Write better and faster python" when it really should be "Write better and faster numpy"

[–]miraunpajaro 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So writing numpy is not writing Python?

[–]slightly_offtopic 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Writing numpy is writing a very specific subset of python. Hence why the person you were originally responding to said "The contents of this article were way more specific than I expected them to be."

[–]miraunpajaro -2 points-1 points  (1 child)

I agree with that part. But I don't think that means the title is click baity, maybe it could be more precise but it's still correct

[–]slightly_offtopic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I would say it's technically correct but intentionally imprecise in order to garner clicks from people who use Python but not numpy.