They say that he is not held back by knowledge
37 stories

Mist Showers: Sustainable Decadence? | LOW←TECH MAGAZINE

1 Comment


Image: Mist Shower Hack Kit. Jonas Görgen.

The daily shower would be hard to sustain in a world without fossil fuels. The mist shower, a satisfying but forgotten technology which uses very little water and energy, could be a solution. Designer Jonas Görgen developed a do-it-yourself kit to convert almost any shower into a mist shower and sent me one to try out.

The Carbon Footprint of the Daily Shower

The shower doesn’t get much attention in the context of climate change. However, like airplanes, cars, and heating systems, it has become a very wasteful and carbon-intensive way to provide for a basic need: washing the body. Each day, many of us pour roughly 70 litres of hot water over our bodies in order to be “clean”.

This practice requires two scarce resources: water and energy. More attention is given to the showers’ high water consumption, but energy use is just as problematic. Hot water production accounts for the second most significant use of energy in many homes (after heating), and much of it is used for showering. Water treatment and distribution also use lots of energy.

In contrast to the energy used for space heating, which has decreased during the last decades, the energy used for hot water in households has been steadily growing. One of the reasons is that people are showering longer and more frequently, and using increasingly powerful shower heads. For example, in the Netherlands from 1992 to 2016, shower frequency increased from 0.69 to 0.72 showers per day, shower duration increased from 8.2 to 8.9 minutes, and the average water flow increased from 7.5 to 8.6 litres per minute.

In many industrial societies it’s now common to shower at least once per day

Altogether, the average Dutch person used 50.2 liter of water per day for showering in 2016, compared to “only” 39.5 litres of water per day in 1992. This is a conservative calculation: these data do not include the showers taken outside the home, for example in the gym. Research shows that in many industrial societies, and especially among younger people, it is now common to shower at least once per day.


The original man-made shower. Pouring a bucket of water over one’s (or another person’s) body. Image: Daniel Julie (CC-BY-2.0).

Taking the Dutch as an example, let’s look at the energy use and carbon emissions of a daily hot shower. Heating 76.5 litres of water (8.9 minutes x 8.6 litres per minute) from 18 to 38 degrees Celsius requires 2.1 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of energy. Depending on the energy source (gas, electricity), the carbon intensity of the power grid (US/EU), or the efficiency of the gas boiler (new/old), the resulting CO2-emissions of an average shower amount to 0.462 – 0.921 kg. If we compare this to the carbon emissions of a relatively fuel efficient car (130 gCO2/km), the emissions of a typical shower equal 3.5 – 7 km of driving, and this result ignores the energy cost demanded by water treatment and distribution.

The emissions of a typical shower equal 3.5 – 7 km of driving

In principle, the energy for a shower could be generated by renewable energy sources. However, if eight billion people were to shower daily, total energy use per year would be 6,132 terawatt-hours (TWh). This is eight times the energy produced by wind turbines worldwide in 2017 (745 TWh). All (current) wind turbines in the world could provide only 1 billion people with a “sustainable” daily shower. Furthermore, the use of renewable energy sources doesn’t lower the water use of the daily shower. To be clear, renewable energy is part of the solution – solar boilers, biomass, heat generating windmills – but we also need to look at the demand side of washing in a post-carbon world.

More Powerful Showers

Since the early 1990s, low flow shower heads have provided a more water and energy efficient way of showering. These shower heads use between four and nine litres of water per minute, roughly half the flow rate of a normal shower (ten to fifteen litres per minute). Almost half of all Dutch households had a low flow shower head installed in 2016, but as we have seen, the flow rate of the average shower since the 1990s has been increasing, not decreasing.


A rain shower. Image: <a href="" rel="nofollow"></a>.

That’s because other Dutch people have upgraded to rain showers, which have a water flow of about 25 litres per minute – double that of a normal shower head, and three times more than what a low flow shower head uses. A 8.9 minute rain shower requires 222 litres of water and 6.3 kilowatt-hour of energy to heat it. The carbon footprint corresponds to 14.3 – 21.3 km of driving.

Life Before Showers

It may shock some younger readers, but only fifty years ago most people in industrial societies didn’t shower at all. Wall-mounted shower units, installed over the bathtub, became widespread only in the 1970s, and dedicated shower cubicles became a regular fixture in new homes only since the 1980s and 1990s. Before the arrival of the shower, people took one (or a few) bath(s) per week, and in between they washed themselves at the sink using a washcloth (the so-called sink wash, bird bath or sponge bath).

The weekly water and energy use of a daily shower quickly surpasses the water and energy use of a once, twice or even thrice weekly bath

The shower is often presented as a more sustainable option than the bath, because the latter is said to use more water. However, the weekly water and energy use of a daily shower quickly surpasses the water and energy use of a once, twice or even thrice weekly bath. The sponge bath is even more water and energy efficient: roughly two litres of water is sufficient to get clean, and the water could even be cold because not the whole body gets wet at the same time.


Taking a sponge bath. Summer Morning, a painting by Carl Larsson, 1908

Environmental organisations, water companies, and municipalities encourage people in industrial societies to take shorter showers, use low flow shower heads, and install energy efficient water boilers. There’s also factors influencing energy and/or water use that these institutions don’t dare to question: shower frequency, water temperature (“take cold showers”), or the act of showering itself – it is never suggested that a sponge bath would actually suffice. Clearly, the daily hot shower is today regarded not as a luxury but as a basic necessity.

Why Do We Shower?

However, showering does not only wash the body. A shower that’s entirely focused on cleaning the body – a so-called Navy shower or Sea shower– takes very little time, energy and water. A Navy shower consists of a 30 seconds shower to get wet, soaping the body while the water is off, and is completed by another 30 second shower to rinse the soapy water.


Until the 1970s, showers were only used in barracks or prisons to wash many people in a short time. Image: La douche au Régiment, a painting by Eugène Chaperon, 1887.

Assuming an average water flow, a (hot) Navy shower uses only 8.3 litres of water and 0.2 kilowatt-hour of energy. A daily sponge bath would have even lower water and energy use. A nine minute hot shower per day is by no means a basic necessity: it’s a treat. Since the 1990s, the daily shower has been portrayed in advertisements as a means of relaxation, stress relief, and sensual pleasure.

Mist Showers

The use of the shower to treat oneself seems to be incompatible with a drastic reduction of its water and energy use. However, there is a technology that might just do that: the mist shower. A mist shower atomizes water to very fine drops (less than 10 microns), which greatly reduces the water flow. Buckminster Fuller invented the first one in 1936 as part of his Dymaxion bathroom (he called it a “fog gun”). The idea was taken up again in the 1970s, when several trials and experiments were conducted with both atomised hand washing and showering.


Left: Mist shower developed by NASA. Right: Mist shower developed by the Canadian Minimum Housing Group. Both are from the 1970s.

NASA developed a mist shower with a hand-held, movable nozzle that incorporated an on-off thumb controlled water valve attached to a flexible hose. The average water use for a nine-minute shower was measured to be 2.2 litres, which corresponds to a water flow of only 0.24 litres per minute. The Canadian Minimum Housing Group developed and tested several mist showers and obtained a flow rate of 0.33 liters of water per minute. . In both cases, swab tests of bacteria on the skin showed that mist showers clean the body just as well as a “normal” shower of the same duration – using 30 to 40 times less water.

Jonas Görgen developed a kit that converts almost any shower into a mist shower.

Jonas Görgen, a young designer who graduated from the Design Academy Eindhoven in 2019, became fascinated by the history of the mist shower and decided to build one himself. Compared to earlier mist showers, Görgen has improved the concept in two important ways. First, he developed a kit that can turn almost any shower into a mist shower with very little effort. Second, in contrast to earlier experiments, his mist shower uses not one but three to six nozzles. This turns a functional but very basic mist shower (using only one nozzle), into a pleasant experience that feels just as comfortable and invigorating as a “normal” shower.


A 6-nozzle mist shower in the bathroom of designer Jonas Görgen. Image: Jonas Görgen.

The kit that Jonas sent me contains six nozzles, some connectors and dividers, some flexible plastic tubes (“feel free to cut to any length”), and some pieces of copper wire (“to fix and attach the nozzles in the right positions”). I installed a five-nozzle mist shower in less than twenty minutes, and although the result won’t win a design award (in fact, Jonas built a more beautiful mist shower for his graduation project), as a do-it-yourself shower hack it is simply brilliant.

With five nozzles, I measured a water flow of two liters per minute, which is five times less than my now obsolete shower head

In my set-up, four of the nozzles are fixed (one aimed at the head, one aimed at the back, and two aimed at the hips), while one is flexible and can be aimed where it’s needed — as in the NASA experiments. Using more than one nozzle increases the water flow, but the water savings remain significant.


Image: Detail of a mist shower.

For five nozzles, I measured a water flow of two litres per minute, which is five times less than my now obsolete shower head (ten litres per minute) and 12.5 less than the water flow of a rain shower. It’s unusual to obtain such large savings with so little effort. Jonas writes about his shower that “it is not all a compromise in comfort, as it is sometimes suggested in the research papers of the 1970s” and I totally agree. The difference is clearly due to the fact that earlier mist showers only used one nozzle.

Energy Savings of a Mist Shower

The energy savings of a mist shower are smaller than its water savings. That’s because a mist shower requires a higher water temperature. The increased surface area of the water decreases water use but also causes the heat to dissolve more quickly in the air. Even if the water coming from the tap is at maximum temperature (usually 60 degrees Celsius and already slightly too hot to touch), when sprayed by a nozzle it quickly loses its temperature the further you place your body from the opening. The trick is to position the nozzles in such a way that they closely surround the body. I did this with the iron wires and some duct tape, but there are more elegant ways.

The energy savings of a mist shower are smaller than its water savings

I found a water temperature of about 50 degrees Celsius to be sufficient for thermal comfort, but a mist shower in winter may require a higher water temperature, so let’s assume a value of 60 degrees to calculate the energy use of my 5-nozzle mist shower. At a flow rate of two litres per minute, a 8.9 minute shower consumes 17.8 litres of water. Heating that volume of water from 18 degrees to 60 degrees requires 1.04 kWh. That’s half the energy use of the average shower in the Netherlands (2.1 kWh), and six times lower than the energy use of a rain shower (6.3 kWh).


Details of Jonas Görgen’s do-it-yourself mist shower.

The energy use of a mist shower could be further reduced by showering in an enclosed cabin, which increases thermal comfort with lower water temperatures. Another trick to increase thermal comfort in winter is to open the nozzles a bit so that the surface area of the water decreases. This increases water use but decreases heat loss. It is down to the individual to find balance between saving energy or water, based on local circumstances.

An argument that is often made against water saving shower heads is that people compensate lower water flows by taking longer showers. A similar argument could be made against mist showers, because the use of mist increases the time needed to rinse the body of soapy water. However, a mist shower of 8.9 minutes offers plenty of time to get rid of soap and shampoo. The test subjects in the NASA experiments all managed to wash and rinse within 9 minutes, using only one nozzle on a flexible hose. Washing long hair is more problematic, but also in this case the problem can be addressed by opening the nozzles a bit more, increasing the water flow.

How Many Nozzles Can We Afford?

The five-nozzle mist shower offers significant water and energy savings compared to a “normal” shower and does so without sacrificing comfort. However, is it sustainable enough? If eight billion people used a five-nozzle mist shower, all wind turbines in the world could still only provide two billion people with a daily hot shower. And, compared to a one-minute Navy shower – which is entirely focused on efficiency, not on comfort – energy use is five times higher, and water use is twice as high. So, let’s see what happens when we decrease the number of nozzles, still assuming average shower frequency and duration.

Three nozzles – with a flow rate of roughly one liter of water per minute – are the minimum for providing the comfort of a hot shower

I found three nozzles – with a flow rate of roughly one liter of water per minute – to be the minimum for providing the comfort of a hot shower. This would bring the water use of a 8.9 minute mist shower down to 8.9 litres, which corresponds with the water use of a one-minute Navy Shower. The energy use would come down to 0.52 kWh, two to three times higher than that of a Navy shower. This would provide four billion people with a wind-powered daily hot shower, meaning that if we halved the shower duration (from 8.9 to 4.5 minutes) or showered less frequently (once every two days), the global population could be cleaned and pampered using only wind power.


A nozzle in my mist shower.

If we give up on comfort and simply get clean with as little energy and water as possible, we could take a mist shower using only one nozzle, just like in the seventies. Using just one nozzle I measured the water flow to be 0.3 litres per minute, meaning that a 8.9 minute mist shower would need only 2.67 litres of water and 0.156 kilowatt-hour of energy. The resource use of a mist shower then corresponds to that of a sponge bath, and is significantly lower than that of a one-minute Navy Shower. All wind turbines in the world could provide roughly 15 billion people with a daily 8.9 minute hot mist shower.

If more than fifteen nozzles are used, the energy use of a mist shower is higher than that of a conventional shower

Conversely, the water and – especially – energy use of a mist shower increases quickly as more nozzles are added. With twenty nozzles, the water use is still below that of the average shower (6-7 litres vs. 8.3 litres per minute), but the energy use is already higher: 3.1 kWh compared to 2.1 kWh. With ten nozzles — see for instance the commercially available Nebia Spa Shower — water use remains very low at only 3 liters per minute, but energy use is only 25% lower in comparison to a normal shower (1.45 vs. 2.1 kWh). Mist showers are not low energy products by definition. It depends how we use them.


There’s one problem with mist showers operating with only one to three nozzles: modern water boilers don’t get triggered by a flow rate below 1 litre of water per minute, meaning that only cold mist comes out. This is not a fundamental problem – it’s technically possible to make water boilers that heat small amounts of water – and it brings us to another potential advantage of the mist shower: its effect on the bathroom.


I got so fond of my mist shower that I’m travelling with it.

The modern shower is not a device that stands on its own. It is plugged into several infrastructure networks, like the water supply, the sewer network, and the power grid or gas infrastructure. In contrast, although a mist shower could be plugged into the same infrastructures, it could also operate without them, further reducing the use of resources.

Modern water boilers don’t get triggered by a flow rate below 1 liter of water per minute, meaning that only cold mist comes out

First of all, a switch to mist showers would make it possible to use much smaller and less powerful water boilers, which could be powered by local solar or wind powered systems that are smaller and cheaper than those required for conventional water boilers. With a minimal mist shower, one could even question the need for a water boiler at all. The quantity of water is so small (2.67 litres) that it could be heated on the fire – just like in the old days.


A portable mist shower from the 1970s, pressurized with a bicycle pump.

Secondly, because of its high water use, a conventional shower needs to be connected to the drain. The mist shower discharges much less water, which makes it possible to take the shower off-pipe and treat the water on site, for example to flush the toilet, water the plants, or clean the pavement. Third, a water supply in the bathroom is not strictly necessary either: a small container could be filled elsewhere and taken to the bathroom.

The Canadian experiments in the 1970s resulted in such a portable mist shower. The water was stored in a Volkswagen window washing reservoir connected to a bicycle pump to pressurize the water. The 2.5 litres of water were pressurized with about twenty strokes of the bicycle pump. In short, if we switch to mist, the infrastructure that made the modern shower possible can be scaled down and simplified, to such an extent that the bathroom could be taken off-grid and off-pipe even in an urban context, bringing further reductions in the use of water and energy. The same approach could be applied to hand washing and dish washing.

Jonas Görgen‘s mist shower is not for sale yet, but you can let him know if you’re interested. A mist shower is on display at the Dutch Design Week Eindhoven, 19-27 Oct. 2019.

Please note that all showers carry a legionella risk. The smaller water droplets from a mist shower remain in the air for a longer time, which increases the risk of inhalation. Therefore, it is important to take elementary precautions.

Kris De Decker

To make a comment, please send an e-mail to solar (at) lowtechmagazine (dot) com.

Read the whole story
263 days ago
Interesting options about showering. I think of a shower as a luxury that I really enjoy but this might be an option to make it more sustainable. The other thing might be to recapture the heat from the drain.
Share this story

Sci-Fi-Esque ‘Portals’ on the Streets of Vilnius and Lublin Connect Passersby in Real-Time

1 Share

Vilnius. All images © Portal, shared with permission

Prior to hopping on the train for their morning commutes, Vilnius residents can greet pals passing through a main square in Lublin, Poland, despite being 376 miles apart. Thanks to “Portal,” a sleek pair of screens installed in the city centers, passersby have the opportunity to wave hello and socialize with their counterparts just as if they were standing in front of each other on the street. Dubbed “a visual bridge,” the futuristic installation resembles large, round orbs embedded with screens and cameras that transmit views of the two locations in real-time.

“Portal” is the culmination of five years of research and design, and the project to expand to cities around the world, with two more eye-like devices coming to Reyjavik and London soon.








Read the whole story
345 days ago
Share this story

Ubuntu Blog: Flutter and Ubuntu so far

1 Comment

At Flutter Engage, Ken VanDine, engineering manager for the Ubuntu desktop,  made an appearance in the keynote speech to talk about Flutter on Ubuntu. Canonical has been working to support Flutter for some time now, bringing the SDK to Linux, committing to build a new Ubuntu installer, and now, making Flutter the default choice for future Canonical mobile and desktop apps. We thought we’d take this opportunity to talk about what all this means and why we’re doing it. 

Flutter and Ubuntu, Ubuntu and Flutter

Back in July 2020, we (Canonical along with Google’s Flutter folks) announced support for the Flutter app ecosystem. This was the first step towards Flutter being available for Linux through their alpha release. From there, Ubuntu Desktop engineers hit the ground running. You’ll find a full list of updates about their work in the team’s weekly discourse posts as far back as April. In that list, you’ll see that in August of 2020 the team started to discuss building a new Ubuntu installer, and Flutter was on the list of possibilities.

Well, in February 2021, we announced that the installer would be refreshed and it was being made with Flutter. This came out of a desire to deliver a refreshed installer experience across all of Canonicals products and, after some deliberation, Flutter was chosen to be the best option. Now, as of Ken’s words at Flutter Engage, and our involvement in the event, we are making sure Flutter is a first-class experience and stays high on our list of platforms for consideration when designing future mobile and desktop apps.

<noscript> <img alt="" src=",q_auto,fl_sanitize,c_fill,w_720/" width="720" /> </noscript>

What this means

  • Desktop app developers have another option for developing applications that they know Canonical will continue to support.
  • Linux developers will be able to create apps more easily to work across platforms (desktop, mobile and IoT) and operating systems to target Windows and macOS too. 
  • The desktop team will be working with the Yaru team to ensure Flutter apps are consistent with the design of the Ubuntu Desktop.
  • Flutter becomes a first-class citizen for snaps and in snapcraft
<noscript> <img alt="" src=",q_auto,fl_sanitize,c_fill,w_720/" width="720" /> </noscript>

Why though? 

There are of course numerous options when it comes to developing new apps. Typically, for the desktop, you want to optimise your app to ‘look right’ with the underlying OS, for performance, and for proper integration with OS features and capabilities. Canonical’s work here meets all of these criteria.

Given that Canonical is going to be making applications for Ubuntu you can count on us putting work into making sure Flutter apps ‘look right’ in the Desktop.  Flutter even allows developers to use web styles that can ‘mimic’ the UI of the system. So a Flutter app built for Ubuntu can use a collection of widgets modelled purposefully after native Ubuntu desktop designs. Flutter has better performance than alternatives such as Electron and while it isn’t as performant as native development platforms, it does so well that the ability to develop for multiple platforms and across operating systems outweighs the difference. And by the same reasoning, proper integration will be taken care of.

This is all well and good but most notably, Flutter is a truly cross-platform tool and is open source. If the Linux ecosystem at large picks this up there is a tremendous opportunity for massive ecosystem expansion. The vast majority of Flutter’s codebase is written in Dart code (using Dart only packages), and just works with no modifications necessary across all the platforms. And since the announcement in July last year, the number of plugins is slowly but surely increasing for Linux. Cross-platform development doesn’t just mean Linux developers can write apps for other platforms, it means Flutter developers for any other platform can contribute their apps to Linux and expand the Linux app ecosystem indefinitely.   

There is even talk of future support for Universal Windows Platforms. Imagine deploying your Linux app to your Xbox. 

Get started with Flutter on Ubuntu

We recommend you give it all a try and tell us what you think. Since this is still relatively early days in terms of getting everything set in Ubuntu there are a couple of gotchas when first getting started but there’s a tutorial for that. And of course, we encourage you to get involved. These are some links to the new desktop installer and associated technologies that you can help with.  

If you have questions come and say hello over at the Ubuntu Discourse

<noscript> <img alt="" src=",q_auto,fl_sanitize,c_fill,w_720/" width="720" /> </noscript>

Read the whole story
421 days ago
I wonder if this will become the new defacto standard or just a flash in the pan. The fact its limited to the dart language could be a limiting factor for some.
Share this story

Using an IP camera in conference calls

1 Comment

My webcam has broken, something that I have been using a lot during the last few months for some reason.

A friend of mine suggested that I use the mic and camera on my mobile phone instead.  There is a simple app ‘droidcam’ that makes the phone behave as a simple webcam, it also has a client application to run on your PC to capture the web-stream and present it as a video device.  All well and good but I would like to keep propitiatory software off my PCs (I have a hard enough time accepting it on a phone but I have to draw a line somewhere).

I decided that there had to be a simple way to ingest that stream and present it as a local video device on a Linux box.  It turns out that it is a lot simpler than I thought it would be.  I had it working within 10 minutes!

Packages needed:  ffmpeg, v4l2loopback-utils

sudo apt-get install ffmpeg v4l2loopback-utils

Start the loop-back device:

sudo modprobe v4l2loopback

Ingest video and present on loop-back device:

ffmpeg -re -i <URL_VideoStream> -vcodec rawvideo -pix_fmt yuv420p -f v4l2 /dev/video0


Read input at native frame rate. Mainly used to simulate a grab
device, or live input stream (e.g. when reading from a file). Should
not be used with actual grab devices or live input streams (where it
can cause packet loss). By default ffmpeg attempts to read the
input(s) as fast as possible. This option will slow down the reading
of the input(s) to the native frame rate of the input(s). It is
useful for real-time output (e.g. live streaming).
 -i <source>
In this case my phone running droidcam
-vcodec rawvideo
Select the output video codec to raw video (as expected for /dev/video#)
-pix_fmt yuv420p
Set pixel format.  in this example tell ffmpeg that the video will
be yuv colour space at 420p resolution
-f v4l2 /dev/video0
Force the output to be in video for Linux 2 (v4l2) format bound to
device /dev/video0

Read the whole story
601 days ago
Neat idea. You should also be able to get at it direct from obs studio.
Share this story

Kushal Das: A few new generation command line tools

1 Comment

Many of us live on the terminal. We use tools which allows us to do things faster and let us stay productive. Most of these tools are old. Sometimes we do pick up a few new generation command line tools. Here is a small list of tools I am using daily. All of these are written in Rust .


ripgrep screenshot

ripgrep was the first Rust tool I started using daily as a replacement for grep. It is easy to use. The output looks nice, and also works with my vim.


exa is the replacement for ls. It includes many useful flags.

exa demo


bat is the one stop replacement for cat and less. It also provides syntax highlighting with nice colours. I do have an alias cat=/usr/bin/bat -p.

bat demo


zoxide allows to move around directories super fast.

zoxide demo


starship is the shell prompt you can see in all of the GIFs above. It allows a lot of customization.

All of these tools are packaged in Fedora 32 by the amazing fedora-rust SIG.

Read the whole story
720 days ago
Some useful shell tools.
Share this story

Daniel Bader: How to Make Your Python Loops More Pythonic

1 Comment

How to Make Your Python Loops More Pythonic

Pythonize your C-style “for” and “while” loops by refactoring them using generators and other techniques.

Writing Pythonic Loops

One of the easiest ways to spot a developer with a background in C-style languages who only recently picked up Python is to look at how they write loops.

For example, whenever I see a code snippet like this, that’s an example of someone trying to write Python like it’s C or Java:

my_items = ['a', 'b', 'c']

i = 0
while i < len(my_items):
    i += 1

Now, what’s so “unpythonic” about this code?

Two things could be improved in this code example:

  • First, it keeps track of the index i manually—initializing it to zero and then carefully incrementing it upon every loop iteration.
  • And second, it uses len() to get the size of a container in order to determine how often to iterate.

In Python you can write loops that handle both of these responsibilities automatically. It’s a great idea to take advantage of that.

If your code doesn’t have to keep track of a running index it’s much harder to write accidental infinite loops, for example. It also makes the code more concise and therefore more readable.

How to track the loop index automatically

To refactor the while-loop in the code example, I’ll start by removing the code that manually updates the index. A good way to do that is with a for-loop in Python.

Using Python’s range() built-in I can generate the indexes automatically (without having to increment a running counter variable):

>>> range(len(my_items))
range(0, 3)

>>> list(range(0, 3))
[0, 1, 2]

The range type represents an immutable sequence of numbers. It’s advantage over a regular list is that it always takes the same small amount of memory.

Range objects don’t actually store the individual values representing the number sequence—instead they function as iterators and calculate the sequence values on the fly.

(This is true for Python 3. In Python 2 you’ll need to use the xrange() built-in to get this memory-saving behavior, as range() will construct a list object containing all the values.)

Now, instead of incrementing i on each loop iteration, I could write a refactored version of that loop like this:

for i in range(len(my_items)):

This is better. However it still isn’t super Pythonic—in most cases when you see code that uses range(len(...)) to iterate over a container it can be improved and simplified even further.

Let’s have a look at how you might do that in practice.

đŸ’Ą Python’s “for” loops are “for-each” loops

As I mentioned, for-loops in Python are really “for-each” loops that can iterate over items from a container or sequence directly, without having to look them up by index. I can take advantage of that and simplify my loop even further:

for item in my_items:

I would consider this solution to be quite Pythonic. It’s nice and clean and almost reads like pseudo code from a text book. I don’t have to keep track of the container’s size or a running index to access elements.

The container itself takes care of handing out the elements so they can be processed. If the container is ordered, so will be the resulting sequence of elements. If the container is not ordered it will return its elements in an arbitrary order but the loop will still cover all of them.

What if I need the item index?

Now, of course you won’t always be able to rewrite your loops like that. What if you need the item index, for example? There’s a Pythonic way to keep a running index that avoids the range(len(...)) construct I recommended against.

The enumerate() built-in is helpful in this case:

>>> for i, item in enumerate(my_items):
...     print(f'{i}: {item}')

0: a
1: b
2: c

You see, iterators in Python can return more than just one value. They can return tuples with an arbitrary number of values that can then be unpacked right inside the for-statement.

This is very powerful. For example, you can use the same technique to iterate over the keys and values of a dictionary at the same time:

>>> emails = {
...     'Bob': '',
...     'Alice': '',
... }

>>> for name, email in emails.items():
...     print(f'{name} → {email}')

'Bob →'
'Alice →'

Okay, what if I just have to write a C-style loop?

There’s one more example I’d like to show you. What if you absolutely, positively need to write a C-style loop. For example, what if you must control the step size for the index? Imagine you had the following original C or Java for-loop:

for (int i = a; i < n; i+=s) {
    // ...

How would this pattern translate to Python?

The range() function comes to our rescue again—it can accept extra parameters to control the start value for the loop (a), the stop value (n), and the step size (s).

Therefore our example C-style loop could be implemented as follows:

for i in range(a, n, s):
    # ...

Main Takeaways

  • Writing C-style loops in Python is considered unpythonic. Avoid managing loop indexes and stop conditions manually if possible.
  • Python’s for-loops are really “for-each” loops that can iterate over items from a container or sequence directly.

đŸ“ş Watch a video tutorial based on this article

Read the whole story
1886 days ago
One of the key but simple lessons on using python and loops.
Share this story
Next Page of Stories