Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development
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
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 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
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
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