Thanks for that, the difference is a bit more than I hoped but less than I feared =)
At least it confirms (if it was not obvious):

• that both solution are O(n),
• and that a single loop is faster,
• and that we probably need at least 10_000_000 items to compensate the extra time to write the fastest version ;)

which is evidentely the best practice anyway, as a function reason to be is to be called more than once! (But I'm not responsible for most people confusing "best practice" and "shortest solution"…)

Just to needlessly contribute to a 5 year old debate, here are the timings i get:

n=   1000, list_comprehensions: 0.009238 s, for_loop: 0.007677 s
n=  10000, list_comprehensions: 0.100740 s, for_loop: 0.084233 s
n= 100000, list_comprehensions: 1.019162 s, for_loop: 0.908490 s
n=1000000, list_comprehensions: 12.969199 s, for_loop: 11.535525 s

Where n is the list size and
comparing this solution to the solution of Mercy Madmask.

Use proper code formatting (triple backticks) please.

magic

bad algorithm. for loop inside the for loop. index method is O(n)

I got a companion.

did you animated the dragons and bullets ? just kidding.

Click View Solution in his post to check his solution.

Sivakumar, how do you do that?

Thanks,
Josh

Nice solution. But you can return false first.

I don't know how it is clever and best practices. Friend, filter means one loop. here 4 filter. we can do it easily by one loop.

yeah. got my company.