150

I understand that they are both essentially the same thing, but in terms of style, which is the better (more Pythonic) one to use to create an empty list or dict?

Somnath Muluk
  • 51,453
  • 32
  • 215
  • 222
Noah McIlraith
  • 14,386
  • 7
  • 26
  • 35

11 Answers11

231

In terms of speed, it's no competition for empty lists/dicts:

>>> from timeit import timeit
>>> timeit("[]")
0.040084982867934334
>>> timeit("list()")
0.17704233359267718
>>> timeit("{}")
0.033620194745424214
>>> timeit("dict()")
0.1821558326547077

and for non-empty:

>>> timeit("[1,2,3]")
0.24316302770330367
>>> timeit("list((1,2,3))")
0.44744206316727286
>>> timeit("list(foo)", setup="foo=(1,2,3)")
0.446036018543964
>>> timeit("{'a':1, 'b':2, 'c':3}")
0.20868602015059423
>>> timeit("dict(a=1, b=2, c=3)")
0.47635635255323905
>>> timeit("dict(bar)", setup="bar=[('a', 1), ('b', 2), ('c', 3)]")
0.9028228448029267

Also, using the bracket notation lets you use list and dictionary comprehensions, which may be reason enough.

tripleee
  • 158,107
  • 27
  • 234
  • 292
Greg Haskins
  • 6,424
  • 2
  • 26
  • 22
  • 6
    Dict and list comprehensions can be done using the English names as well. Example: `list(i for i in range(10) if i % 2)` – Zags Jun 13 '14 at 19:37
  • 4
    is there a reason why {} and [] are so much faster? I thought they were simply aliases. – Justin D. Nov 25 '15 at 03:44
  • The timeit doesn't seem to give accurate time. As per the benchmark, it seems to take ~200ms which is way slower than normal http calls. Try running dict() normally in shell and then run timeit("dict()"), you would see visible difference in execution. – piyush May 26 '17 at 14:04
  • 4
    @piyush Actually, the `timeit()` function reports the total amount of time to execute a specified number of iterations, which is `1000000` by default. So the examples above are the number of seconds to run the code snippet a million times. For example `timeit('dict()', number=1) // -> 4.0531158447265625e-06` (one iteration) while `timeit('dict()') // -> 0.12412905693054199`(a million iterations) – Greg Haskins Jun 06 '17 at 22:09
  • @GregHaskins so in that case, I don't see one should worry about using dict() or {}, unless looping through a million records & using dict() in the loop. – piyush Jun 17 '17 at 09:24
  • a good explanation about that fact here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30216000/why-is-faster-than-list – Jean-François Fabre Dec 21 '17 at 13:10
54

In my opinion [] and {} are the most pythonic and readable ways to create empty lists/dicts.

Be wary of set()'s though, for example:

this_set = {5}
some_other_set = {}

Can be confusing. The first creates a set with one element, the second creates an empty dict and not a set.

orlp
  • 106,415
  • 33
  • 201
  • 300
  • 6
    `{}` always creates an empty dict. `{1,2,3}` creates a set in 2.7+ but is a syntax error in `2.6` and older versions. – ThiefMaster Apr 26 '11 at 13:20
  • 2
    sorry? that's a variable with name `some_epic_set` that is pointing to an empty `dict` object... it's not an empty set. For an empty set you need to use `set()`. – 6502 Apr 26 '11 at 13:21
  • 3
    @6502: Indeed, but it is a common pitfall that `{5}` creates a set with one element, `5` and `{}` is an empty dict. – orlp Apr 26 '11 at 13:24
  • 1
    Wow, that was confusing. Still, it's not Fractal of Bad Design level of confusing. :-) – Prof. Falken Aug 21 '12 at 12:45
  • Can {} be used to make a set? This work in python 3.6? There is a way to make an empty set with {}? Thanks. – Ender Look May 26 '17 at 14:57
  • @EnderLook only via set({}) :D – Breezer Aug 17 '18 at 14:50
  • 6
    @EnderLook: Actually, with [generalized unpacking](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0448/), you can use `{*()}` to make an empty `set` with literal syntax. I call it the one-eyed monkey operator. :-) – ShadowRanger Nov 09 '18 at 04:15
20

The dict literal might be a tiny bit faster as its bytecode is shorter:

In [1]: import dis
In [2]: a = lambda: {}
In [3]: b = lambda: dict()

In [4]: dis.dis(a)
  1           0 BUILD_MAP                0
              3 RETURN_VALUE

In [5]: dis.dis(b)
  1           0 LOAD_GLOBAL              0 (dict)
              3 CALL_FUNCTION            0
              6 RETURN_VALUE

Same applies to the list vs []

ThiefMaster
  • 298,938
  • 77
  • 579
  • 623
  • 8
    This assumes that BUILD_MAP and LOAD_GLOBAL are constant time and take the same amount of time. Highly unlikely. timeit gives a much better estimation. – Jamie Pate Jun 10 '14 at 15:53
  • 1
    More likely, `CALL_FUNCTION` takes *at least* as much time as `BUILD_MAP` (the function being called essentially is `BUILD_MAP`), and `LOAD_GLOBAL` takes is just additional overhead. – chepner Nov 19 '19 at 17:18
13

Be careful list() and [] works differently:

>>> def a(p):
...     print(id(p))
... 
>>> for r in range(3):
...     a([])
... 
139969725291904
139969725291904
139969725291904
>>> for r in range(3):
...     a(list())
... 
139969725367296
139969725367552
139969725367616

list() always creates a new object on the heap, but [] can reuse memory cells in many situations.

Shaido
  • 25,575
  • 21
  • 68
  • 72
andreykyz
  • 263
  • 3
  • 10
6

IMHO, using list() and dict() makes your Python look like C. Ugh.

RichieHindle
  • 258,929
  • 46
  • 350
  • 392
4

In the case of difference between [] and list(), there is a pitfall that I haven't seen anyone else point out. If you use a dictionary as a member of the list, the two will give entirely different results:

In [1]: foo_dict = {"1":"foo", "2":"bar"}

In [2]: [foo_dict]
Out [2]: [{'1': 'foo', '2': 'bar'}]

In [3]: list(foo_dict)
Out [3]: ['1', '2'] 
oxtay
  • 3,852
  • 5
  • 26
  • 42
  • You can get the same results as `[foo_dict]` by using `list((foo_dict,))`. The `list()` method takes an iterable as it's only parameter and iterates over it to add elements to the list. This will cause a similar pitfall by doing `list(some_list)` which will flatten the list. – sotrh Mar 26 '18 at 21:33
3

There is no such difference between list() and [] but if you use it with iterators, it gives us:

nums = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8]

In: print([iter(nums)])

Out: [<list_iterator object at 0x03E4CDD8>]

In: print(list(iter(nums)))

Out: [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Arun
  • 51
  • 5
2

A difference between list() and [] not mentioned by anyone, is that list() will convert, for example a tuple, into a list. And [] will put said tuple into a list:

a_tuple = (1, 2, 3, 4)
test_list = list(a_tuple) # returns [1, 2, 3, 4]
test_brackets = [a_tuple] # returns [(1, 2, 3, 4)]
Karl Wilhelm
  • 1,015
  • 7
  • 25
1

there is one difference in behavior between [] and list() as example below shows. we need to use list() if we want to have the list of numbers returned, otherwise we get a map object! No sure how to explain it though.

sth = [(1,2), (3,4),(5,6)]
sth2 = map(lambda x: x[1], sth) 
print(sth2) # print returns object <map object at 0x000001AB34C1D9B0>

sth2 = [map(lambda x: x[1], sth)]
print(sth2) # print returns object <map object at 0x000001AB34C1D9B0>
type(sth2) # list 
type(sth2[0]) # map

sth2 = list(map(lambda x: x[1], sth))
print(sth2) #[2, 4, 6]
type(sth2) # list
type(sth2[0]) # int
sebtac
  • 383
  • 3
  • 5
  • here seems to be an explanation of the behavior using example of the range() function >>> print(range(10)) # range(0, 10) range() behaves like a list, but it isn’t a list. It is an object which returns the successive items of from a sequence when you iterate over it, it doesn’t really make the list, saving space. such an object is iterable, that is, suitable as a target for functions and constructs that expect something from which they can obtain successive items until the supply is exhausted. The function list() creates lists from iterables: >>> list(range(5)) # [0, 1, 2, 3, 4] – sebtac May 22 '18 at 03:45
  • 1
    the consequence is that [] stores the iterable object; list() creates list from the same iterable – sebtac May 22 '18 at 03:50
-3

A box bracket pair denotes one of a list object, or an index subscript, like my_List[x].

A curly brace pair denotes a dictionary object.

a_list = ['on', 'off', 1, 2]

a_dict = { on: 1, off: 2 }
the Tin Man
  • 155,156
  • 41
  • 207
  • 295
-6

It's mainly a matter of choice most of the time. It's a matter of preference.

Note however that if you have numeric keys for example, that you can't do:

mydict = dict(1="foo", 2="bar")

You have to do:

mydict = {"1":"foo", "2":"bar"}
ThiefMaster
  • 298,938
  • 77
  • 579
  • 623
Ikke
  • 95,379
  • 23
  • 93
  • 119