Gabriel Sechan wrote:
Disagree- you're comparing apples to oranges. If you want to include
Python's libraries, then you need to include the fact their 10 billion
XML libraries for C. So it would be far far faster for him to learn a
library in C than to learn Python and its library.
We are going to have to agree to disagree, then.
Almost all of the C/C++ gods I have met would eschew C/C++ for this kind
of stuff and reach for a different language. That's kind of telling.
Java, Perl, Python, Tcl, Lisp, etc. are *very* obviously faster to
develop in than C/C++ except for very specific instances.
Disagree. Whatever you know best is fastest. I can code in C or C++ at
several times the speed of switching to any other language.
That may be true, but even a fairly average
Java/Python/Perl/Tcl/Lisp/etc. user will stomp you flat in productivity
except for very specific problems.
At that point, if I need to get the problem solved, I'm better off with
the Java/Python/Perl/Tcl/Lisp/etc. person instead of you. Sorry.
THe idea of one language being better than another for "productivity" is
pure bullshit. No language is more productive than any other, except
for personal experience in it. What tends to speed or not speed things
up is availability of libraries that can reduce the need to write code.
Then why do you use any language above assembly? Assembly with
libraries should be the fastest, no?
Once you admit that something is more productive than assembly, then you
admit that languages have a productivity spectrum and your argument
against the spectrum fails.
-a
--
[email protected]
http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
