Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

Andy Freeman anamax at earthlink.net
Tue Feb 4 18:15:25 CET 2003


"Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<4gF%9.6102$6P2.681977 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Andy Freeman wrote:
> > "Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> > news:<%In%9.4882$6P2.543391 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> >>
> >> I don't create a more abstract class until it is proven that I need
> >> one.
> >
> > Do you write inline code for matrix multiplication or do you use a
> > (small) set of procedures?
> 
> I have a matrix class with plenty of inline functions.  I haven't needed to
> optimize anything yet.  When I do put on the optimization hat, I break out
> the matrix into individual operations according to what the CPU does well.
> That's a pretty late stage of the development game though.

We're not talking about optimization - we're talking about reuse.
You're reusing your matrix code.  I'm pointing out that templates are
another low-overhead reuse mechanism.

The simplest code is code that isn't there.

> concerned, the proper way to implement functionality is by lazy evaluation.

Yes.  Off topic, but yes.

It is interesting is that you think that I'd disagree.  It's not
the first time that you've thrown in some irrelevant motherhood as if
it's somehow deep or controversial.

BTW - One of the arguments for Python and against C++ is that Python
requires less fluff to express "what you need".




More information about the Python-list mailing list