Laziness in Python - Computerphile

Laziness is a virtue - well, in programming anyway! Professor Thorsten Altenkirch on how you can use the 'yield' to compute certain things "on demand"
To Infinity & Beyond: • Infinite Data Structur...
Python Sudoku Solver: • Python Sudoku Solver -...
/ computerphile
/ computer_phile
This video was filmed and edited by Sean Riley.
Computer Science at the University of Nottingham: bit.ly/nottscomputer
Computerphile is a sister project to Brady Haran's Numberphile. More at www.bradyharan.com

[@not_proton]

This guy looks like every computer scientist to ever exist, in the same body

[@NuclearSlayer52]

the Avatar

[@JackVermicelli]

I immediately thought of Brent Spiner's character in Independence Day.

[@erinphilippe5993]

@@JackVermicelli same!

[@noobian3314]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@isbestlizard]

Yesssss and talks like Dr Strangelove

[@EnigmacTheFirst]

4:10 “3+4 is... nothing. Oh, it’s 7. Okay, that’s good” I don’t know why this had me laughing so hard

[@dudeabideth4428]

That made me laugh too. Like a smart professor struggling with a gui interface

[@ahmedfenti9462]

Bacon u making lthings boring

[@Robstafarian]

My face hurts from laughing at that.

[@hjp360]

same with me.

[@Twisted_Code]

and then he messed up trying to call nats, not originally expecting it to return and iterator "that was not very clever". They got a kick out of me, sort of reminding me I'm not the only one that occasionally forgets these things. Thanks for leaving that one in @Computerphile

[@WigglyWings]

I don't know about coding but I am kind of an expert in Laziness.

[@worthlessguy7477]

brambedkar59 and you’re not alone

[@deus_ex_machina_]

Indeed. Not to brag, but I'm one of the foremost experts in the field.

[@Twisted_Code]

if IFeelLikeIt: yield work

[@nobodyofconsequence6522]

To be fair a lot of coding is about laziness, so you probably have an aptitude of it.

[@Twisted_Code]

@@nobodyofconsequence6522 this is... surprisingly true. Especially when you get to the point of trying to make your program more efficient. You're really just trying to get it to do as much with as little time as possible, and sometimes that may be through laziness of not handling something that's out of the scope of the original program design. Basically saying "not my problem; I'm just going to do what I was told to do, nothing more". And, surprisingly, limiting the scope like this actually makes future programming more modular. In other words, it works.

[@ThorstenAltenkirch]

Ok since I am at it here is another comment: no the sieve of Erasthostenes is not an efficient method to compute primes, I just used it as a way to illustrate computing with infinite datastructures. It is known since a while that Primes is in RP, that is randomised polynomial time. Some years ago it was even shown to be in P, i.e. you don't even need a dice.

[@galvanart3623]

Professor, could you then kindly suggest a more efficient method of code, to find primes?

[@jens6398]

The sieve is efficient. But you implemented trial division.

[@ThorstenAltenkirch]

@@jens6398 I don't know what you mean by "trial division" but I have implemented the sieve.

[@jens6398]

@@ThorstenAltenkirch No. There is *never* any divisibility test in the sieve. Instead there is elimination of multiples, as you actually explained in the beginning of the video. To quote Wikipedia: Primes can also be produced by iteratively sieving out the composites through divisibility testing by sequential primes, one prime at a time. It is not the sieve of Eratosthenes but is often confused with it, even though the sieve of Eratosthenes directly generates the composites instead of testing for them. Trial division has worse theoretical complexity than that of the sieve of Eratosthenes in generating ranges of primes.

[@arirahikkala]

I hope KZbin won't completely mangle my code here. I grabbed a convenient library that provides a `primes` in Haskell and set out to calculate, on the one hand, the count of times that a number is crossed out when finding all the primes less than some given n using the sieve of Eratosthenes: > sieved n = sum . map (\p -> length . takeWhile ( length . takeWhile (\p -> c `mod` p /= 0) . takeWhile (

[@Erik_The_Viking]

Professor Altenkirch is hysterical. I wish I had him during my CS classes.

[@AWES0MEDEFENDER]

Hilarity?

[@SirFancyPants21]

Serdar Kocak hysterical is often used as “even more than hilarious”

[@Zoronoa01]

@sirati97 he means hilarious

[@chrisbreidenstein3831]

Lol take it easy

[@Zoronoa01]

@@chrisbreidenstein3831 he meant hilarious

[@justingolden21]

TLDR: "yield" in python is used in generators to loop through something and store the data lazily so when you call the function next it doesn't have to start at the beginning but rather picks up where it left off (often in a loop)

[@phillip5187]

Ty!

[@Jeacom]

me: nooo, you can't define a recursive function without an exit condition!! Altenkirch: haha, stack goes brrrrr.

[@MubashirullahD]

haha. We could have done for i in range(n): yield i

[@ThomasBomb45]

@@MubashirullahD That's basically a circular definition. Range() needs to be defined as well

[@MubashirullahD]

@@ThomasBomb45 I don't know what you mean by circular? :) I'm assuming everyone knows range is lazy in python 3.

[@ThomasBomb45]

@@MubashirullahD because his nats() function's output is exactly the same as range() except it is infinite. Rather than use range internally, he explicitly calls yield to demonstrate how it works

[@y.z.6517]

@@ThomasBomb45 # Range is not needed i=0 while True: i+=1 yield i

[@tylersanders6854]

@1:30 he can say the word "really" without moving a single muscle.

[@luismanuelricogutierrez6863]

This video is all about laziness, I guess

[@psymontung4527]

Laziness lol

[@VivekPayasi]

This cracked me up :D

[@sharkinahat]

I guess I'll be That Guy today: "Now is better than never. Although never is often better than *right* now."

[@aragonnetje]

The zen of python is never a bad thing to reference

[@cheaterman49]

So Zen! :-)

[@Twisted_Code]

>>> import _this_

[@y.z.6517]

'now' == 'right now'. 'Right' is just a stress with no real meaning. You sentence is basically 'Now is better than never. Never is better than now.' This can be reduced to False.

[@Twisted_Code]

@@y.z.6517 I think you might've been staring at your IDE too long

[@jayachandra677]

No you cannot multiply strings python: print("haha string goes b" + "r"*10) >haha string goes brrrrrrrrrr

[@SteelSkin667]

I'm stealing that

[@Excgo]

I see, you have been on r/programmerhumor today.

[@hamiltonianpathondodecahed5236]

alternatively print('ha' * 2 + 'string go b' + 'r' * 10)

[@theRealChadWarden42069]

reddit

[@righo96]

this is str*int, not str*str

[@chaosphoenixhex]

Dude, I feel so relaxed just looking at this guy. It’s a true inspiration, thank you. I need a beer now.

[@luciojb]

- "WHEHRE IS THIS THING???" - "ok ok yeah yeah imma do it" Best lines ever

[@alexstabell3064]

This is honestly some of the most beautiful code I've ever seen. I've made a many sieve, but never a lazy sieve. I can't believe you can do this incredible calculation with only a few lines of code and an understanding of coroutines.

[@code-dredd]

"I wanted to talk about laziness, but I was to lazy to do talk about it" Missed opportunity 🙃

[@y.z.6517]

You are not lazy, or you wouldn't have commented.

[@saranobutt]

I don't know why this is recommended to me, but I'll watch it because I do love to learn new things and this is definitely a subject that I have no knowledge on.

[@eliudnjai]

It's a sign Sara. Join the computer science field

[@Phroggster]

m_CompSciStudents++;

[@andarielbaal3405]

Starting with this kind of video will only scare you)))

[@burlacuvalentin4481]

It is a great dream that my phone at leats recommends me smth like this. I suggest you watch the lambda calculus videos they are real fun!

[@AbdulIsik]

Programming is actually very easy and fun, just start putting your free hours in it and you'll become a lazy programmer in no time!

[@Saver006]

Trying to show your homies a cool programming trick be like: ''...so now when I press this button... oh it doesn't work...yyym'''

[@TotalImmort7l]

Laziness in python is writing codes without getting annoyed by ';' and understanding the beauty of a < x < y < b.

[@omri9325]

Lex Fridman

[@TotalImmort7l]

@@omri9325 yep, he described this feature of python as the most beautiful thing a programming language can ever have.

[@mibdev]

I dislike python but love a < b < c It's genius.

[@ZipplyZane]

I know I could look it up, but I'd love for you to tell me what that does. Does it just test all those conditions, i.e. returning true only if a is less than x, x is less than y, and y is less than b?

[@TotalImmort7l]

@@ZipplyZane See it in this way: Given expression: a < x < y < b 1. First, the interpreter evaluates (a < x). Let's say, the result of "a < x" is True. Then the current expression will be True < y < b. As in #1, the interpreter evaluates (True < y), holds the result in a stack, and repeats until the interpreter reaches the end of the expression. Don't think it in terms of stacks and ASTs. It is better to see this as a mathematical expression.

[@SirKickassington]

Agreed. He is the most likable professor ever. And in keeping with the important lesson on laziness, I’m typing this lying down.

[@bingloveskoki]

Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your short paper about the contribution of Martin Hofmann. Thanks!

[@JacobCanote]

This is a perfect example of real life coding.

[@tobyclark6312]

I hadn’t considered Nottingham as a potential university before but just looked at it now and will definitely be considering it as a first/second choice!

[@MegaArti2000]

This yield statement puzzles me so hard man

[@raingram]

It's like "return" but it starts from that line the next time you run the function. It just "pauses" at that point, waiting for you to call it again.

[@KbIPbIL0]

yield is multiple return yield makes your function "G" a generator, which yields a sequence. when you call next(g) it continues running until the next yield statement and the function next() returns the thing you yielded.

[@christophebeaulieu4916]

@@raingram I've literally never seen it that way. You're amazing. Thanks for your comment. I get it now

[@hanvyj2]

@@raingram great explanation

[@jphanson]

@@christophebeaulieu4916 ~. i’m

[@GifCoDigital]

I now finally see the big advantage of using generators!!! Great video!!

[@TheRuralpoet]

Enjoyed this... He had a great sense of humour... Intellect with humility is the greatest... Thanks

[@CryTaxel]

Doesn't this create a callstack that gets bigger and bigger with every iteration (like all non-tail-recursions) or am I missing something?

[@noobinvestor3180]

Aalex not quite actually..generators or iterators in general holds the address to the particular value it is now referencing and moves to the “next” address when next() is called

[@chris8443]

Yes. Also, python doesn't support tail recursion. Edit: as pointed out, of course python supports tail recursion. :-) What I meant is that it doesn't support _tail call elimination / tail call optimization_.

[@Schnorzel1337]

Tried it with the exact code and for default settings python 3.7 it gave an "RecursionError: maximum recursion depth exceeded" after the prime 733.

[@sadhlife]

@@noobinvestor3180 it will, the yield from is the issue here, it's basically recursion

[@sadhlife]

@@chris8443 not yet :)) with the new PEG parser, we might get something nice

[@ZeedijkMike]

The content is great and his warm dry humor makes me giggle.

[@ConnorKennedy16]

I think it's between Altenkirch and Brailsford as my favorite overall Computerphile presenters in terms of raw depth-of-content. Pound is a close third.

[@dooza]

I'VE WATCHED SO MANY VIDEOS FROM COMPUTERPHILE AND NEVER SEEN THE VOICE BEHIND THE CAMERA. FINALLY.

[@trueriver1950]

This is because with social distancing via Zoom (or similar) there is already a camera on the interviewer. Pre-Covid it would be non-lazy to add a second camera pointed at the camera operator. Or to put it another way, in a video conference everyone is a voice behind a camera, including the professor

[@raqha4575]

i love his coffee mug

[@gedtoon6451]

This is a good explanation about yield. With regard to Sudoku, all good Sudoku puzzles only have one solution.

[@TerjeMathisen]

The Sieve code is interesting, but I really worry about the efficiency! There are only two ways to generate the next prime here, and that is to either remember all previous primes, and iterate until you find one which is not a multiple of any of them (but only up to sqrt(n)), or you have to use standard sieve thinking and strike out at least a bunch of multiples each time you find a new prime. The second approach has much more useful Big-O properties. The Sudoku solver otoh will work with constant memory, it should be more or less equal to a standard recursive solver with backtracking?

[@kkloikok]

"oh it's ... That's bad" Story of my life.

[@SuperBartles]

"This is what being a programmer is actually like" tutorial

[@xario2007]

Never knew about yield - yet I use Haskell and Python. Very helpful!

[@nekkowe]

I'm always happy to see a new episode with Prof. Altenkirch :>

[@anindyasundarmanna6683]

This video is absolute gold!

[@rooneye]

You can tell this guy knows what he's talking about here. He looks like an EXPERT in the art of lazy.

[@TheJaguar1983]

As soon as I see the title, I figured it would be about generators. Very useful things.

[@ahmadalkhansa5294]

For a moment I thought I didn't understand seive but suddenly profesor corrects it.😅 It's beautiful to show that it's ok to make mistakes

[@beskamir5977]

"Laziness is a virtue - well, in programming anyway!" No need to specify that it's in programming. Without laziness we wouldn't have had a reason to domesticate animals, build societies, develop science and technologies, create machines, etc. Basically we'd still be in the stone age if our species wasn't lazy and constantly looking to make life easier for ourselves.

[@beskamir5977]

@Joseph Malone I disagree. By using an animal to plow your field (and later a machine) we decrease the work we need to do. Ideally we wouldn't be doing that job at all but at least until we get decent enough ai, not doing that job would mean we wouldn't get to eat. Therefore laziness is expressed as "optimization" rather than as completely not doing the required task because the task is essential for our survival. In the case of tasks that are less essential for our survival such as copying books, the laziness factor is more subtle as the motivation there is more about saving costs than not doing the original job. Although saving costs can be considered as part of laziness since it allows those involved to get the same thing for less effort. Essentially minimizing effort is inherently linked with and usually driven by laziness.

[@cryonim]

@Joseph Malone As a character's voiceline in R6 goes, "Efficiency is clever laziness".

[@y.z.6517]

@@beskamir5977 Explain why people play games? By playing games, we basically seek *more* work that are unnecessary.

[@y.z.6517]

@@beskamir5977 Our brain tells from fun and not fun works. Hunting is inherently fun to our brain (or our ancesters would have died from laziness). When our ancesters started ploughing, they avoided the pain of starvation, but doing so also deprived them of the fun of hunting. Most modern works are boring, because our brains were not evolved to do that. BTW, many women enjoy shopping, because shopping is basically paid gathering.

[@beskamir5977]

@@y.z.6517 I think you basically answered your own question. Laziness happens when the thing we need to do is boring. When it's fun laziness doesn't apply as much.

[@rz2374]

I know i am 39 minutes late but I have never been this early before. Seeing only 62 comments is so weird. And this is nicely timed as I was just researching about yield statements.

[@RUFU58]

When you’re not programming you’re guarding the train in The Matrix. Top man!

[@MecchaKakkoi]

The shirts are always top shelf!!!!

[@RichardHamnett]

This method is paramount for feeding data / data augmentations into machine learning model training

[@sarwagyajain4841]

With recursion in generators does the call stack keep growing (especially in the case in the video) or does it optimize and keep only the relevant variable?

[@yokilewis4894]

8:19 This kind of naming always gets me. In Haskell, when doing `filter`, do you filter out the elements that make the predicate true, or do you keep them? (It takes a while to get used to it!) Similarly, do you sieve out the elements, or are you actually keeping them?

[@darcipeeps]

Same thing as other search filters

[@y.z.6517]

Always run a 2-line test code first to figure stuff like that out. This is even more important, if you dip in and out of several languages and libraries.

[@pedrovasconcelos8260]

There is a fundamental difference between iterators and laziness: lazy evaluation memoizes results of subcomputations whereas iterators do not. For example, the Haskell version of the infinite list of Fibbonacci numbers can be defined as fibs = 0:1:zipWith (+) fibs (tail fibs) If you translate this definition to iterators you'd end up with something like the following: def fibs(): yield 0 yield 1 yield from (i+j for i,j in zip(fibs(),tail(fibs()))) def tail(it): # couldn't find this in the standard library... next(it) # drop the first element while True: n = next(it) yield n However, the Python code above takes exponential time whereas the Haskell one takes linear time (ignoring the log factor for the increasing sizes of numbers). To get linear time using iterators you have to manually code the memoization (using a loop for simplicity): def fast_fibs(): a,b = 0,1 while True: yield a a,b = b,a+b

[@pedrovasconcelos8260]

@@mrdkaaa Lazy evaluation a.k.a. call by need requires memoization of results, otherwise it is simply call by name. For reference check the chapter on graph reduction i. SPJ's "The Implementation of functional languages" (it's out of print by freely available from his web page).

[@shawon265]

This is probably the shortest pythoniest-python program I have ever seen!

[@dread69420]

8:04 - 8:15 programming in a nutshell

[@TheDhammaHub]

Laziness as in "waiting to evaluate an expression as late as possible"? Or laziness as in getting nothing done? xD

[@SteelSkin667]

The latter is much easier to implement!

[@__.__-_.]

pull request let me do nothing all day

[@Argon270]

IKR! There are 2 types of laziness in programming.

[@darcipeeps]

Just learned about this yesterday in my programming languages course

[@Ekevoo]

This mug. I love this mug. I want this mug.

[@helloworld9018]

Speaking about sudoki solver with yield, will next solution always be unique? Or at some point it can return a duplicate of previously found solution? How can one control this process?

[@clayz1]

Write a prime factoring routine and apply it looking for remainders of n (the number currently being tested).

[@TrippSaaS]

If computer scientists were Pokemon, this guy is the final evolution.

[@pafnutiytheartist]

The problem with this approach is that it reaches recursion depth pretty fast. I was able to sieve primes using a slightly improved version of this method to about 3500. After that yield from is just unviable

[@guyindisguise]

It's possible with mutable state instead of recursion e.g. def nats(n): while True: yield n n += 1 edit: fixed typo

[@CecilWesterhof]

That was the first thing I thought. It can (on my system) go to 130, but with 131 I get a RecursionError. Do you mind sharing your code?

[@pafnutiytheartist]

@@CecilWesterhof I did the same thing as in the comment above for generating natural numbers and the rest is exactly like described in the video. I'm not sure how to use mutable state for the sieve itself.

[@CecilWesterhof]

@@pafnutiytheartist That is strange. With that change it goes from 130 to 497. Not nearly the 3500 you talk about.

[@mastershooter64]

laziness is me writing a for loop to make a list of alphabets or numbers instead of actually typing it out myself. in a few years I'm gonna start making a neural network that can write half of the code for me lol

[@AzraelCC]

I don't understand why Computerphile videos would have any dislikes. That said: NICE.

[@superwinner5010]

Hah, a few weeks ago I got interested in prime numbers and after some time I got it to be able to rival C in speed, best I got it was all primes under 10^11 in 93.6s which is blazing fast, but I could have still made it even faster, but it gets very complex fast.

[@tobiastriesch3736]

Props for rocking the unicorn mug 🤩

[@zeroone8548]

this is amazing

[@ShaunakDe]

if we kept this running, would the program only halt when the intermidiate variable became too large? Or would it halt before that due to python overheads ?

[@siliconmessiah1745]

I don't know if it for this video specifically, but professor seems to bring about an air of laziness through his mannerisms as well😂

[@lennyschwarz6683]

9:12 The "Three!" is perfect

[@baudneo]

That coffee cup is glorious.

[@timseguine2]

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure this will blow the stack if you do this in python

[@StreuB1]

4:26 'nutz' 4:40 'yeet' Got it Prof. Thorsten is friggin awesome.

[@christinebraun9610]

0:15 is me anytime I get an email from my university admin

[@dalirkosimov4623]

🤣🤣😩

[@flyingsquirrel3271]

If you want a lazy natural number generator that doesn't blow the stack after a few iterations, do it manually: class Nats: def __init__(self, n): self.n = n - 1 def __next__(self): self.n += 1 return self.n def __iter__(self): return self Now you can use "Nats(2)" just like he used "nats(2)" in the video. Of course the sieve generator still reaches maximum recursion depth pretty quickly, but it gets way further with this Nats implementation. Edit: I just noticed that "blowing the stack" isn't quite right here. Since it's python, it's all safe and heap allocated anyway, so it just hits the recursion limit.

[@corynivens6510]

You don’t even need a class here: def nats(n): while True: yield n n+=1 Or better yet def nats(s): yield from range(s, sys.maxsize) And lastly: s = range(2, sys.maxsize)

[@flyingsquirrel3271]

@@corynivens6510 Haha you're right. The while True solution is much cleaner. I don't like the sys.maxsize thing though. I know its usually gonna be big enough, but theoretically python ints can grow infinitely big (until your ram is full), so that implementation is technically not equivalent to the other ones.

[@flyingsquirrel3271]

Lol I just looked through the itertools module and of course this iterator exists in the std lib! So here's the definite solution: from itertools import count (then use "count" instead of "nats")

[@corynivens6510]

Anything higher than sys.maxsize will result in an overflow. The only caveat with s = range is that range doesn’t support next(), so you’d technically need s=iter(range...)

[@corynivens6510]

Ah man, the itertools solution really is the one isn’t it? itertools or nothing haha

[@justjoshingaround]

Minor suggestion. I think he should have tried to show what happens at the end of his yield sudoku solver. Using "return" with "yield" has interesting behavior with a "StopIteration" exception.

[@TheGitGuild]

Now I get why developers love Python :)

[@haroldostenger5160]

hi, the cribe is a nice approach, but it fails with recursion error although I expected it not to fail because of the yield from. I'll try to tweak it and fix it.

[@Rennu_the_linux_guy]

the fact this was reccomended to me makes me feel personally attacked

[@cn-ml]

Is "yield from y" just syntactic sugar for "foreach (x in y) yield x"?

[@NJudah3]

so cool!

[@2rfg949]

haha I thought you wrote that wrong!! but I was deferring to your professorial nature! I love you videos

[@2rfg949]

the coolest thing i got from this is modularity. the rest is fascinating, i did not know yield, and recursion does my head in a bit, but i can use it. but modularity is such a level up for me in my coding,. thank you for that my friend!!!

[@liluziskrrt4116]

Best language ever

[@alexrobertson35]

oh no you're gonna start a war (btw c++ best (: )

[@pipony8939]

@@alexrobertson35 c++ segfault incoming

[@alexrobertson35]

@@pipony8939 I was using smart pointers!

[@pipony8939]

@@alexrobertson35 smart? why not genius pointers instead?

[@alexrobertson35]

@@pipony8939 tbh most of the time I don't even use smart one

[@harrywang9375]

This dude looks like the perfect guy to describe laziness

[@BenjaminGoldberg1]

Is python's "yield" similar to raku's gather/take?

[@ElizaberthUndEugen]

If you use the `filter` predicate, it gets even more obvious that the sieve function precisely mimics the idea of layers of sieves (aka filters!). def sieve(gen): i = next(gen) yield i yield from sieve(filter(lambda k: not is_multiple(k, i), gen)) This evaluates to filter(lambda k: not is_multiple(N, i), ... filter(lambda k: not is_multiple(5, i), filter(lambda k: not is_multiple(3, i), filter(lambda k: not is_multiple(2, i), gen))) ...) where N is the nth prime.

[@Deadlious]

when you find out about yield and generators in python in 2020...

[@tochimclaren]

Mine was " yield from "

[@davidwallis4281]

nats() seems very 'functional', but it contains state, and the function returns a different value with the same (no) arguments which seems the opposite to what functional often tries to do. Still learning...

[@le09das]

Wish I had this guy as a teacher.

[@pskry]

Did anyone check stackoverflow for a python question titled "Why doesn't my sieve function work?"

[@TechyBen]

(Looks at my cat sleeping) Nature is "efficient", just turns out efficiency is comfortable sometimes. :)

[@iqdotcode706]

I'd smoke weed with this dude

[@aryamaangoswamy179]

That's a nice compliment :)

[@stephanfitzpatrick1769]

The nats generator shows is mathematically more elegant, but it will not render an infinite sequence since python will create a call stack and you'll eventually receive a RecursionError. itertools.count would avoid that or a while loop

[@rodizadi9591]

Never seen a man who speaks so well without moving their lower jaw

[@kristofszobacsi5123]

3:32 Great Band!!

[@Twisted_Code]

Why doesn't nats crash when it hits about 1000 or so? Seems like it would hit the stack limit, unless I'm misunderstanding how the control flow works (or unless I mis-implemented it) Edit: nevermind, I must have mis-implemented it. I kept trying various explanations (such as tail recursion) but eventually just tried it again about a week later.

[@the3nder1]

I need that mug.

[@emilejetzer7657]

I see a lot of comments on how this implementation of the sieve is poor; that’s because it’s a simple example of a technique that can be useful. It’s not meant to be used exactly as shown, but it can do the job anyway. The sudoku solver shows a better use case.

[@helloworld9018]

Agreed. Some people just don't get the meaning of the video. Professor didn't say he is going to do 100% accurate implementation. He wanted to show what you can do with yield and how to be 'lazy'.

[@JamesTJoseph]

It's a wonderful idea to handle large files.

[@stephaned198]

Why is like he does'nt sleep enough ?

[@Argon270]

Because too lazy he isto sleep . I'm sorry! I make grammatical errors too

[@appleslover]

Lazy to sleep

[@neutronstar6739]

Lazy sleep

[@sameash3153]

I haven't slept well in years

[@PaulaBean]

PEP8: no spaces before colons, and put spaces around your operators.

[@KbIPbIL0]

colons are not operators, no?

[@kartoffelmozart]

But this way of nesting generators inside of generators will quite quickly give a RecursionError will it not? Because you make another nested generator for every prime you find

[@topsiterings]

Nice!

[@elorz007]

Another way of understanding "yield from" is thinking that it "returns" a function but you didn't call it yet. (Useful concept to also understand function pointers / blocks / closures / lambdas). Kind of.

[@MrBoubource]

I've seen you get a recursion error at prime 733. Is there a way to make it efficient ? Else it would be an elegant but useless piece of code

[@CoyMcBob]

See my comment. This is an elegant but useless piece of code. Even if recursion wasn't an issue this is not using a sieve and is painfully inefficient and almost laughably incompetent

[@emilejetzer7657]

Coy McBob can you describe how you would implement the sieve without testing divisibility?

[@busterdafydd3096]

never, ever taught, I feel like have huge gaps in my academic knowledge and I'm trying to become an engineer

[@masebor]

i only listened to the first 40seconds and i approve.