Is Python overhyped (just like Java)?
aleax at aleax.it
Tue Apr 1 11:29:02 CEST 2003
David Abrahams wrote:
> "Greg Ewing (using news.cis.dfn.de)" <ckea25d02 at sneakemail.com> writes:
>> greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nzDavid Abrahams wrote:
>>> In my application it was easy to predict where the bulk of
>>> the time would be spent, and had I written the core engine in C++
>>> early on I might have saved myself a redesign effort.
>> Or you could have designed that part of the system with
>> a possible C++ interface in mind, if it turned out to
>> be necessary later.
> I thought I was doing that at the time. The problem is that the
> edges of subsystems define themselves differently when there's a
> language boundary there from the beginning.
Yes, I agree and I think that's a part of a wider issue -- e.g.
to ensure your code is portable, it's best to develop in on TWO
platforms at once -- to ensure you can switch RDBMS engines later,
it's best to develop for two or three not very compatible engines
right from the start -- etc, etc.
The applicable italian proverb is, "practice is worth more than
grammar" ("val piu` la pratica che la grammatica"). Theory is
fine, but human beings tend to work better when SOME practical
counterpart is also present. That's also why prototyping is SUCH
a good idea...
More information about the Python-list