Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

Andy Freeman anamax at earthlink.net
Sun Feb 2 19:36:06 CET 2003


"Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<uV3%9.3165$6P2.355430 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Andy Freeman wrote:
> > Then what is taking you so long?
> 
> (1) Designing the mathematical APIs so that the primitives are very easy to
> understand.

You're programming so slowly that you don't have any experience
USING those APIs.  Since using is the only reliable measure of
"easy to understand", you're guessing.

> > Or, if you had a lot of simple relationships that were slightly different
> > from one another, both Python and Lisp[1] would let you exploit that
> > similarity without being forced to keep things as C++ simple as possible.
> 
> You have a profoundly different engineering philosophy.  You seem to think
> up-front flexibility is Good.  I think it is Bad.

Interestingly enough, that section didn't say anything about flexibility
and the statement has nothing to do with flexibility.

If I KNOW all of the relationships in advance, flexibility doesn't matter.
My point is that Python/Lisp will let me express relationships faster
than C++.

Moreover, the statement about flexibility is wrong.  The more flexibile
a language is, the less it costs to recover from any errors or to do further
development.

I've never started a project knowing everything up front, made no errors,
and there was no prospect of a second version.

Now, it may be that a particular kind of flexibility comes at too high
a price, so the package may not be appropriate, but the statement "flexiblity
is bad" is, quite simply, wrong.




More information about the Python-list mailing list