Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

Laura Creighton lac at strakt.com
Fri Jan 31 07:14:34 CET 2003


 "Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<a2h_9. 5383$Wu1.411649 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> My contention is, if your approach is incremental and architectural, Python
> does not offer any amazing payoff over C++.  Python only gives you a big
> value add when you're trying to be more spontaneous.

The point that some of us were trying to make is that developing in
C++ is _slow_.  Now it may be that your heavy-duty graphics primatives
really do have to run like a bat out of hell.  Thus, poor you, you so
need fast code running speed that it is worth it for you to put up
with slower code development speed.

Here is Paul Graham making the same point, but saying that it was
Lisp that made him productive.  He thinks that it made him more
productive than Python would have, and that Python would make you
more productive than C++.

http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/paulgraham/sec.txt

And here he is again, 

http://lib1.store.vip.sc5.yahoo.com/lib/paulgraham/bbnexcerpts.txt

swearing that it is because his approach is incremental and architectural
(well suited to Lisp because this is the way Lisp programmers
have been programming for 30 years) that he ran rings around his
competitors.

Laura





More information about the Python-list mailing list