Python Performance: Why 'if not list' is 2x Faster Than Using len() (blog.codingconfessions.com)

submitted 5 days ago by jnovinger@programming.dev to c/python@programming.dev

52 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] Kissaki@programming.dev 6 points 4 days ago

While the 2nd approach is not wrong, the first method is considered more Pythonic. Many people don’t agree, but I’ve already put forward my points in a previous article on that debate.

Does Pythonic mean best practice in the python community or "good python"?

If "many people don't agree", how can they claim it to be "pythonic"? Isn't that contradictory?

[-] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"Many" isn't the same as "most," though I don't think there's any way to know what "most" is.

But here's my reason for agreeing w/ the OP:

not x checks both None and emptiness, which is usually desired
len(x) == 0 will raise an exception if x is null
with type hinting, those should be the only two reasonable options

It's nice that it's slightly faster, though performance has absolutely nothing to do w/ my preference, though it does have something to do with my preference for avoiding exceptions for non-exceptional cases.