Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Brandon Van Every]

holger krekel wrote:
> Brandon Van Every wrote:
>>
>> You have a profoundly different engineering philosophy.  You seem to
>> think up-front flexibility is Good.  I think it is Bad.
>
> That's an interesting point.  Actually many of the 'unit tests first,
> then the code' crowd might concur with you: only do as much to
> get your unit tests pass.  Up-front flexibility can make programs
> and APIs difficult to understand.  Simplicity is an important goal
> [1].

Not only that, but trying to solve general problems up-front is a sheer
waste of time.  I never generalize anything unless it's proven that I need
the code for at least 2 things.  I'm only one guy, I don't have an army to
code up general-purpose solutions to everyone's perceived problem.
Hardwire, hardwire, hardwire!  At least initially.

> OTOH python allows to easily abstract out functionality into
> classes or functions.  So it certainly helps when there is a
> need to be more flexible.  In my experience C++ tended to
> get more in the way at this stage.

C++ isn't the slightest problem for the kind of work I'm doing now.  Any
language with simple inheritance would suffice.

--
Cheers,                         www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.