this post was submitted on 24 Apr 2025

47 points (92.7% liked)

Python

7042 readers

109 users here now

Welcome to the Python community on the programming.dev Lemmy instance!

📅 Events

Past

November 2023

PyCon Ireland 2023, 11-12th
PyData Tel Aviv 2023 14th

October 2023

PyConES Canarias 2023, 6-8th
DjangoCon US 2023, 16-20th (!django 💬)

July 2023

PyDelhi Meetup, 2nd
PyCon Israel, 4-5th
DFW Pythoneers, 6th
Django Girls Abraka, 6-7th
SciPy 2023 10-16th, Austin
IndyPy, 11th
Leipzig Python User Group, 11th
Austin Python, 12th
EuroPython 2023, 17-23rd
Austin Python: Evening of Coding, 18th
PyHEP.dev 2023 - "Python in HEP" Developer's Workshop, 25th

August 2023

PyLadies Dublin, 15th
EuroSciPy 2023, 14-18th

September 2023

PyData Amsterdam, 14-16th
PyCon UK, 22nd - 25th

🐍 Python project:

💓 Python Community:

#python IRC for general questions
#python-dev IRC for CPython developers
PySlackers Slack channel
Python Discord server
Python Weekly newsletters
Mailing lists
Forum

✨ Python Ecosystem:

🌌 Fediverse

Communities

#python on Mastodon
c/django on programming.dev
c/pythorhead on lemmy.dbzer0.com

Projects

Pythörhead: a Python library for interacting with Lemmy
Plemmy: a Python package for accessing the Lemmy API
pylemmy pylemmy enables simple access to Lemmy's API with Python
mastodon.py, a Python wrapper for the Mastodon API

Feeds

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

47

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

submitted 1 day ago by jnovinger to c/python

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

In complex cases where speed is less important than maintainability, I tend to agree.

In this case, a simple comment would suffice. And in fact nothing at all would be okay for any half-competent Python coder, as testing if lists are empty with if not is super-standard.