813 karma · joined December 1, 2013
For instance lists are dynamically allocated, so repeatedly appending to the list may cause it to reallocate.
lst = []
for i in range(10_000_000):
lst.append(i)
Runs in ~1.67 seconds on my system, using 3.7 (this behavior is also generally true for older versions like Python 2).However due to the leaky abstraction, you can force allocation all at once which speeds things up, albeit at the loss of clarity.
length = 10_000_000
lst = [None] * length
for i in range(length):
lst[i] = i
Runs in ~1.21 seconds.However in these trivial cases Python offers more idiomatic approaches, which also perform better.
lst = [i for i in range(10_000_000)]
Runs in ~0.44 seconds. lst = list(range(10_000_000))
Runs in ~0.22 seconds.Strings behave similarly when comparing the join method to incremental appending.
string = ''
for _ in range(10_000_000):
string += 'a'
Is slower than the more idiomatic join/comprehension. string = ''.join('a' for _ in range(10_000_000))
Or even more concisely: string = 'a' * 10_000_000
Still the trade-off is worth the versatility most of the time IMO. And like you pointed out you can always drop down to C if necessary.Also the ellipsis literal `...`, never need to use `pass`.
I've been writing Python for over a decade and I find this a bit surprising (not saying you're wrong). Python's strong suit was always speed of productivity over runtime speed IMO.
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: Yes (Specifically to the Bay Area/SF)
Technologies: Python 3, Node.js, React, Redux, Django, ES6, PostgreSQL, TensorFlow, Scikit-learn, Docker
Résumé/CV: https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/rectangle-tangle-public/c...
(Full CV available upon request, also the link will automatically expire in 6 months)
Email: rectangle~tangle~@~gmail~.~com (No tildes)
Senior Full Stack Engineer with experience at several early stage startups. I specialize in applied NLP/ML technologies.
Presumably it'd be useful in applications where the parts would normally fail regularly.
In the biological context the complexity is shifted away from the actual selection algorithm and onto the "scoring function." Although the filter of reproduction is relatively simple [1], the reason why the organism was fit and could ultimately reproduce is very complex. The brain's "topology" is the result of selection pressure favoring adaptations that improve fitness by dynamically adapting to relevant patterns found in the environment. The brain attempts to accurately model important aspects of the complex environment it's challenged with to increase fitness.
[1] Nothing in biology is ever actually simple, even though individuals undergo fitness based scoring, the actual notion of individual is arbitrary. In the case of bees most of the individual bees in the colony are sterile, which is obviously bad for fitness of the "individual." However a few individuals reproduce, so all the sterile worker's fitness is shifted onto the queen/drones through the concept of inclusive fitness. This indirect selection also applies to humans, who undergo inclusive fitness through their siblings. This can even be generalized to your individual cells/organs which function as a colony supporting the gonads which actually undergo direct selective pressure.
Not necessarily, many organisms can undergo cryptobiosis, where all metabolic activity ceases, and then restarts when conditions are appropriate (sometimes decades later).
Possibly genetic drift. The odds of life making a successful journey to earth seem very poor, so maybe it was a small population that only made it here once, and then began to speciate.
The counterpoint is that the fossil record is very incomplete when going that far back, seeing as tectonic subduction literally wipes the slate clean.
The notion of abiogenesis occurring only once on earth seems improbable considering complex organs like eyes have evolved independently several different times. Or the fact that convergent evolution "reinvents" similar species in response to similar selective pressures. Selective pressures constantly "push" life in the same directions, so it would seem that whatever forces gave rise to life would have happened so repeatedly, but there doesn't seem to be any evidence for that.
A clean explanation for this would be that life didn't start on earth, and earth may have never had the right conditions to originate life, hence no competing genetic codes. But it was still hospitable enough to maintain life, so one universal genetic code flourishes with no emergent competition.