Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

Laura Creighton lac at
Wed Jan 29 03:11:18 CET 2003

> Laura, I'm not sure if you've moved this discussion offline... maybe
> "away from the newsgroup" is accurate.  Anyways...

I haven't.  I just read python-list as a mailing list, so when I reply
you get a mail, also cc'd to the list.  That then goes to the gateway.
If you want only to get the gatewayed version, let me know, I have
a config file which strips the people who 'only want it as news'
from my mailings as they go out.

> > From: Laura Creighton [mailto:lac at]
> >
> > Last  C++ job I had paid roughly $400 Euros an hour.  And the reason
> > they paid me this was because indeed, it was as onerous as I made it
> > sound.  This is what I was paid to do all day long.
> >
> > You need to get over your notion that there cannot exist a person who
> > is excellent at something and who hates it at the same time.
> But your comparision regarding C++ usability is utterly unfair.  You got
> paid an exhorbitant amount of money to tackle really godawful C++
> problems in a corporate dysfunctional environment.  

Actually, extremely well discplined military environment.  But I have
worked in the other sort as well.

> That is quite beyond
> any language issue.  To say that C++ RAD-IDE would "never" help anyone
> based on your extreme case use is grossly misleading.  

You need to go read the original post again.  His question was,
IF I GET A REALLY cool C++ RAD-IDE, which promises me the moon  in
speedup and rapid development, will it be as fast as developing in
Python.  He wants to know under what circumstances can you develop
as fast in C++ and a RAD-IDE as you can in a language that is good
for rapid development.

And I say, again, never.  Because if you have to walk 10 kilometers
to the road and then get in a Volvo to drive 10 minutes to the beach,
it isn't going to matter if somebody says, 'use my Ferrari instead'.
The place you are spending your time when you are developing in C++
isn't in cranking out the lines of code.  Unless you happen to have
a problem in the rare problem domain where C++ is the best suited language
for solving the problem, then trying to solve it in some language
that is better suited for rapid development will always be faster,
no matter how turbo-charged your C++ IDE is.

> A solo programmer
> or a small team that knows how to "fly in formation" doesn't have your
> corporate $400/hour idiocy problems to contend with.

And when we formed AB Strakt, one thing we agreed on was that we were
NOT going to develop in C++. We were that killer team, and we could
pick whatever language we chose.  It wasn't C++, the language that all
of us were experienced with, and some of us were superbly experienced
with.  We knew all of the strengths of C++.  And, moreover, we knew
that we could get so much more work done if we picked a faster
language than C++ to develop in.  We picked Python even though we had
to first learn the language from nothing but the online docs and
tutorials at  We had never used it before.  We just had it
recommended to us as _the_ rapid development language.  This was
good advice.  It was _still_ faster than developing in C++.   And
when some people got impatient with that, we went and spent the money
on Wing	IDE.  If IDEs speed you up, Wing IDE will speed you up with

Laura Creighton

> Cheers,               
> Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA
> 20% of the world is real.
> 80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

More information about the Python-list mailing list