Python hits the spot

[Bill Tate]

Siegfried Gonzi <siegfried.gonzi at kfunigraz.ac.at> wrote in message news:<3D1482AE.8FA299D8 at kfunigraz.ac.at>...
> My conclusion: I will rewrite my simulation in Fortran 90 and will
> abadon Python. Python is maybe good for some small scripts but not
> appropiate for serious programming.

The hydrodynamic and sediment transport models I used to run had
simulation periods that required at least a week on a high-end
computer.  I wouldn't for
a moment conclude that python is an appropriate numerical engine for
computing the hydrodynamics in an estuary.  However, python worked
great for preprocessing large input data sets, post-processing very
large binary output files and visualizing results.  While that may not
rise to your level of what constitutes "serious" programming,
nevertheless, python performed an important purpose for my work and
made my life a hell of alot easier.

As far as python being appropriate for "small scripts but not
appropriate for serious programming" I don't see where your particular
application of python is sufficiently encompassing enough to make such
a blanket assertion to the language's application as a whole.  It
didn't work for you in the problem domain to which you used python, so
be it.  There are more than a few examples where python rises to the
level of performing mission-critical work outside of your particular
area of focus.