Is it better complexity wise to use the map() function in python or a comprehension?

Question

As the question states. map(f, iterable) can be written as [f(x) for x in iterable]. Which is better to use? And why?

As an example, I would like to convert a list of strings to int.

ip = (raw_input().split())
ip = [int(x) for x in ip]

or

ip = (raw_input().split())
ip = map(int, ip)

Found the link: http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=98196 where Guido van Rossum explains why he wanted to drop `map`, `filter`, `lambda` and `reduce` from the language. — Tim Pietzcker, Mar 14 '15 at 05:43
When you say "complexity", are you talking about the computer science concept (big-O notation)? Or do you mean "complexity of code"? — Karl Knechtel, Mar 14 '15 at 06:01

score 1 · Accepted Answer · edited May 23 '17 at 12:06

1

map may be microscopically faster in some cases (when you're NOT making a lambda for the purpose, but using the same function in map and a listcomp). List comprehensions may be faster in other cases and most (not all) pythonistas consider them more direct and clearer.

more clearly explained here Python List Comprehension Vs. Map

edited May 23 '17 at 12:06

Community

1
1

answered Mar 14 '15 at 05:44

chanakya gujju

149
6

Since you're only copying the first paragraph of Alex Martelli's answer you linked to, it would have been more appropriate to suggest closing the question as a duplicate. Not sure if your reputation is sufficient to do that, so I did it for you. Thanks for finding the canonical answer! – Tim Pietzcker Mar 14 '15 at 05:47
I didn't know that, recently started answering here. Will check that out. Thanks. – chanakya gujju Mar 14 '15 at 06:05

Is it better complexity wise to use the map() function in python or a comprehension?

1 Answers1