Not fully OO ?

Tim Rowe digitig at gmail.com
Sat Sep 27 03:10:57 CEST 2008


2008/9/27 Aaron Castironpi Brady <castironpi at gmail.com>:

> But I, and I imagine I'm not the only one, would love to know the
> example that C# developed faster than Python.  I suppose the fact that
> the line of wx specification that has two identifiers where C# has one
> is more of a drain on programmer resources than may commonly be
> recognized--- not the same as the cost of one extra word in a paper or
> in an editorial.  Similarly, maybe the program that has one extra
> identifier in a line takes a lot more time to develop.

But I didn't use wx -- that's rather the point.  Long before the days
of Python, I kept wanting to use Modula2 but kept getting driven back
to C because in Modula2 I kept having to write stuff that was already
in C libraries. Modula2 was a far better language, but C usually was
far more productive because of what went around it.  C#'s tight
integration with .net and VS mean that it's not a question of one
identifier instead of two, it's *zero* identifiers instead of two
because the tool does it all for me.  Does that mean that C# is a
better language than Python? No, of course not. Does it mean that what
I was doing was not possible in Python? No, of course not. Does it
mean that C# was more productive than Python for me doing that
particular job? Yes it does. (FWIW, I also found the .net XML handling
easier to cope with on that same job).

One day Iron Python plus the VS integration might wean me off C# but
last time I looked it wasn't close. Maybe I should take another look
and see how it's coming on.

-- 
Tim Rowe



More information about the Python-list mailing list