String to Bytes in Python 3: `bytes()` or `.encode()` – Which is More Pythonic?

Converting from Strings to Bytes in Python 3: Which Method is More Pythonic?

When dealing with binary data, it becomes necessary to convert strings into bytes for efficient manipulation. Python 3 provides two primary methods for this task:

b = bytes(mystring, 'utf-8')
b = mystring.encode('utf-8')

Choice of Method:

According to the Python documentation, bytes() constructor accepts various source types, including strings. However, the encode() method is specifically designed for string encoding. Therefore, mystring.encode('utf-8') is more self-documenting and explicit.

Pythonic Considerations:

Python's philosophy emphasizes clarity and consistency. The inverse of encode() is decode(), which performs the reverse operation (converting bytes to strings). This symmetry enhances readability and ensures a consistent syntax for both conversions.

Performance Differences:

Benchmarks have shown that encode() marginally outperforms bytes() constructor for string encoding. However, the difference is negligible and unlikely to impact real-world performance.

Conclusion:

Based on readability, consistency, and performance considerations, mystring.encode('utf-8') is generally considered more Pythonic for converting strings to bytes. It provides clear semantics and aligns with the inverse operation of decode(), making it easier to understand and maintain Python code.

The above is the detailed content of String to Bytes in Python 3: `bytes()` or `.encode()` – Which is More Pythonic?. For more information, please follow other related articles on the PHP Chinese website!