Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

Nomad nomad*** at ***freemail.absa.co.za
Wed Jan 29 21:23:09 CET 2003


On Tue, 28 Jan 2003 20:08:20 +0100, Laura Creighton <lac at strakt.com>
wrote:

>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I don't want to start a thread comparing the Python and C++ languages, but
>> one question bothers me. Using Python, you can of course develop very
>> quickly due to high level constructs and the absence of compilation. On the
>> other hand, so-called "builder IDEs" or "RAD-IDE" (i.e. Borland C++ builder,
>> Microsoft Visual C++) also promise to allow you to develop quickly, even in
>> a less high-level language.
>> 
>> Therefore, my question is:
>> 
>> Is, or under which circumstances is the time which can be gained by using a
>> RAD-IDE equivalent to the time gained by using Python directly?
>> 
>> -Patrick
>
>My guess is 'never'.  The problem with developing in C++ is not that
>you don't have an IDE that makes development faster, but that in C++
>there are so many ways to shoot yourself in the foot that you have
>to spend forever re-reading your code to make sure that it doesn't
>interact in nasty, horrible ways with other people's code.  Or you
>spend your life debugging other people's badly designed templates.
>Or on the phone to Borland saying that you have found another bug in
>the destructors ... or ....
>
>I don't think that it is possible to write an IDE that makes me as
>productive in C++ as I am in Python with ed(1).  That is because almost
>all my time spent in C++ come from some other place than actually writing
>code from scratch.  Other people's milage may vary.
>
>Laura Creighton

I have to agree with Laura except for one point (I couldn't resist it
really, and apologies to Bjarne):

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  However, with C++,
you're likely to blow off your whole leg.

;-)

-- 
Nomad

Wondering of the vast emptyness of the 'net
in search of something cool.




More information about the Python-list mailing list