Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Andy Freeman]

"Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<QSf%9.4044$6P2.467421 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Andy Freeman wrote:
> > "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:
> > 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.
> 
> Not true.  I have to write the test cases.

Test cases aren't the sort of usage that reveals easy to use/understand.

> Also, I have to come back months
> later, read my own code, and understand it again.

And then it's too late.

> > My point is that Python/Lisp will let me express relationships faster than
> C++.
> 
> Well, for the development I describe above, the fastest tool is the tool you
> know well.

I've found that to be untrue.  I've found that some tools are faster
the first time I use them than other tools that I've used for years.

> > 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.
> 
> Sounds like a highly theoretical statement that I can't associate with any
> reasonable engineering reality.

Actually, it's a definition of flexibility.

I've never seen code that didn't have to be modified at some point during
its development.  Therefore, ease of modification, that is, flexibility,
is important.