[Vm-dev] Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak vs Python "smack down"

[Göran Krampe]

On 02/08/2011 05:26 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
> <mailto:nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>     2011/2/8 Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu <mailto:leves at elte.hu>>:
>      >
>      > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011, Nicolas Cellier wrote:
>      >
>      >>
>      >> Just a detail, Python range(a,b) are semi open [a,b)
>      >> think like C for(i=0;i<n; i++)
>      >>
>      >> In the Smalltalk proc8:withwith:with:with:: the range was
>     interpreted as [a,b].
>      >> This Smalltalk (and Cog) unfairly perform too much work.
>      >
>      > And there's another one. In #proc0:block: the loops are (1 to:
>     loops) do: instead of 1 to: loops do:.
>      >
>      >
>      > Levente
>      >
>
>     Yes I noticed, but empty loop time is subtracted.
>     I wonder if it makes a difference.
>
>
> There is a huge difference between 1 to: loops do: [:i|] and (1 to:
> loops) do: [:i|].  IIRC the empty block is written as 1 to: loops do: [:i|].

When I did the port I did not try to rewrite the code to "proper 
Smalltalk style" since it would then typically not compare the VMs. At 
least that was my thought (it was a while since I did this).

So I wrote it with *explicit* creation of Intervals since I presumed 
Python created ranges - but perhaps Python... never mind, google tells us:

http://wiki.python.org/moin/PythonSpeed/PerformanceTips#Usexrangeinsteadofrange


Aha! So yes, it was a fair comparison before, but now in Python3 they 
don't instantiate the range but create an iterator instead. Then we 
should change it too I guess :)

I will make a new version of it.

regards, Göran