abhi9u@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 days agoPython Performance: Why 'if not list' is 2x Faster Than Using len()blog.codingconfessions.comexternal-linkmessage-square35fedilinkarrow-up1118arrow-down114
arrow-up1104arrow-down1external-linkPython Performance: Why 'if not list' is 2x Faster Than Using len()blog.codingconfessions.comabhi9u@lemmy.world to Technology@lemmy.worldEnglish · 8 days agomessage-square35fedilink
minus-squareantlion@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5arrow-down1·8 days agoCould also compare against: if not len(mylist) That way this version isn’t evaluating two functions. The bool evaluation of an integer is false when zero, otherwise true.
minus-squareFooBarrington@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·8 days agoThis is honestly the worst version regarding readability. Don’t rely on implicit coercion, people.
minus-squareantlion@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·8 days agoBut the first example does the same thing for an empty list. I guess the lesson is that if you’re measuring the speed of arbitrary stylistic syntax choices, maybe Python isn’t the best language for you.
minus-squareFooBarrington@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·edit-27 days agoYes, the first example does the same thing, but there’s still less to mentally parse. Ideally you should just use if len(mylist) == 0:.
Could also compare against:
That way this version isn’t evaluating two functions. The bool evaluation of an integer is false when zero, otherwise true.
This is honestly the worst version regarding readability. Don’t rely on implicit coercion, people.
But the first example does the same thing for an empty list. I guess the lesson is that if you’re measuring the speed of arbitrary stylistic syntax choices, maybe Python isn’t the best language for you.
Yes, the first example does the same thing, but there’s still less to mentally parse. Ideally you should just use
if len(mylist) == 0:.