Python Productivity over C++

[Cameron Laird]

In article <39436762 at news.xtml.co.uk>,
Nick <nick at spam_off_videosystem.co.uk> wrote:
			.
		[personal testimony]
			.
			.
>sys,os,os.path,string,re etc. You can write much more reusable, unit testable
>code in Python more easily. I think the lack of typing really aids reusablity
>and code productivity.
			.
			.
			.
I like to repeat the points Nick summarizes here.

C++ advocates (and, in similar ways, those for C
and Java also) often talk about the availability
of tools for those other languages, and about the
superior hygiene static typing affords.  The former
proposition is easy to answer:  Python doesn't 
*need* memory-management tools (for examples), be-
cause, by design, Python enlists the computer to do
that work, rather than forcing it on the developer.

On the other hand, I'm still searching for the best
way to speak about the "well you Python people only
find those errors at run-time" objection.  I find
it a challenge to communicate effectively to
newcomers how much better it is to have a language
that encourages unit testing as Python does. 
Python's developmental productivity is so much
greater, in my experience, as also to defy easy
explanation for those who haven't already used it.
-- 

Cameron Laird <claird at NeoSoft.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html