Re: After C++, what with Python?

Discussion in 'Python' started by Aman, Jan 16, 2011.

  1. Aman

    Aman Guest

    @nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?
    Aman, Jan 16, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Aman

    John Nagle Guest

    On 1/15/2011 10:48 PM, Aman wrote:
    > @nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?


    No, Python is quite useful, but on the slow side. If you're I/O
    bound, not time critical, or otherwise not performance constrained,
    it's quite useful. The language is really quite good, but there's
    some excessive dynamism which has caused every attempt at an optimizing
    implementation to fail.

    John Nagle
    John Nagle, Jan 16, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    On 2011-01-16, John Nagle <> wrote:
    > On 1/15/2011 10:48 PM, Aman wrote:
    >> @nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?

    >
    > No, Python is quite useful, but on the slow side. If you're I/O
    > bound, not time critical, or otherwise not performance constrained,
    > it's quite useful. The language is really quite good, but there's
    > some excessive dynamism which has caused every attempt at an optimizing
    > implementation to fail.


    Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
    Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
    It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
    Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
    still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.

    http://golang.org
    Tim Harig, Jan 16, 2011
    #3
  4. Aman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Tim Harig <> writes:
    > Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
    > Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
    > It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
    > Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
    > still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.


    Go has some nice aspects but it is much lower level than Python. If you
    want a statically typed, compiled language closer to Python's level, I
    know of some projects that have switched from Python to Ocaml. If you
    want dynamic types, I guess there's Dylan, Lisp, or possibly Erlang.
    There is also Haskell, but I think using it takes a much different
    mind-set than Python usually brings out.
    Paul Rubin, Jan 16, 2011
    #4
  5. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On 2011-01-16, Paul Rubin <> wrote:
    > Tim Harig <> writes:
    >> Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
    >> Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
    >> It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
    >> Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
    >> still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.

    >
    > Go has some nice aspects but it is much lower level than Python. If you


    It is a little lower; but, I wouldn't say much lower. My Go code is
    much more similar in concept, feel, and size to my Python code then it
    is to my C code.

    > want a statically typed, compiled language closer to Python's level, I
    > know of some projects that have switched from Python to Ocaml. If you


    I have head good things about Ocaml; but, I have never taken the time to
    learn the language myself. It never reached a critical mass of interest
    from me to consider adopting it. One of the things that gives me hope
    for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
    rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
    Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Applicatio...Top-18-Programming-Languages-for-2011-480790/

    > want dynamic types, I guess there's Dylan, Lisp, or possibly Erlang.


    I am a big fan of Erlang and it's ability to create fault tolerant
    systems; but, it isn't really a general purpose programming language.
    It also runs inside of a VM which means that it doesn't produce native
    binary.
    Tim Harig, Jan 16, 2011
    #5
  6. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what withPython?]

    On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:

    > One of the things that gives me hope
    > for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
    > rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
    > Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.


    If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
    language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
    fooling himself.

    When I design my new language, I will make sure I choose a name such that
    any attempt to search for it on job sites will produce oodles and oodles
    and oodles of false positives, all the better to ensure that simple-
    minded "top language of ..." surveys will give a massively inflated job
    count.

    I think I'll call it "Salary".



    --
    Steven
    Steven D'Aprano, Jan 16, 2011
    #6
  7. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:
    >
    >> One of the things that gives me hope
    >> for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
    >> rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
    >> Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.

    >
    > If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
    > language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
    > fooling himself.


    No I wouldn't say that it has reached market penetration yet; but, it
    has more momentum then any language I am familiar with. I wouldn't be
    at all surprised to see it becoming quite common in the next five years.

    How long has it taken Python to reach its present level of market
    penetration? And, I still don't see a huge amount of professional Python
    use outside of web developement. Go has only been public for less then
    a year.

    Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    distribution capabilities of a full systems level language. This is after
    all the promise the VM based languages made but never really fulfilled.
    It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully capable of
    taking advantage of multicore processors without having to deal with the
    inherent dangers of threading. There are several good choices available
    for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of them have the
    support of a company like Google that is capable of the push required
    to move the language into the mainstream.

    > When I design my new language, I will make sure I choose a name such that
    > any attempt to search for it on job sites will produce oodles and oodles
    > and oodles of false positives, all the better to ensure that simple-
    > minded "top language of ..." surveys will give a massively inflated job
    > count.


    I would agree that Go wasn't the best idea for a language name from the
    search perspective. One would have though a company like Google would have
    been cognizant of those limitations...
    Tim Harig, Jan 16, 2011
    #7
  8. Aman

    rantingrick Guest

    Re: Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On Jan 16, 5:03 am, Tim Harig <> wrote:

    > Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    > gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    > distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.  


    Bravo!

    > This is after
    > all the promise the VM based languages made but never really fulfilled.
    > It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully capable of
    > taking advantage of multicore processors without having to deal with the
    > inherent dangers of threading.


    Bravissimo!!!!!!

    > There are several good choices available
    > for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of them have the
    > support of a company like Google that is capable of the push required
    > to move the language into the mainstream.


    Maybe. I have skimmed over Go and while it looks "somewhat" promising
    i always miss the batteries included and elegant syntax of Python. Of
    course the language is still young so i hope they plan to invest into
    it.
    rantingrick, Jan 16, 2011
    #8
  9. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:
    > On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
    >> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
    >> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
    >> fooling himself.

    >
    > No I wouldn't say that it has reached market penetration yet; but, it
    > has more momentum then any language I am familiar with.  I wouldn't be
    > at all surprised to see it becoming quite common in the next five years.


    I would be very surprised if this were the case. As you point out,
    languages typically have very long incubation times before they reach
    any kind of serious market penetration. This seems doubly true for a
    relatively narrowly targeted language that is in many ways on the
    wrong side of history.

    > How long has it taken Python to reach its present level of market
    > penetration?  And, I still don't see a huge amount of professional Python
    > use outside of web developement.  Go has only been public for less then
    > a year.


    Python's very widely used for scripting and related tasks, and has a
    pretty big user base in academia and the sciences.

    > Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    > gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    > distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.


    I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    lack of exceptions, etc.

    >This is after all the promise the VM based languages made but never
    > really fulfilled. It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully
    > capable of taking advantage of multicore processors without having to
    > deal with the inherent dangers of threading.  There are several good
    > choices available for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of
    > them have the support of a company like Google that is capable of the
    > push required to move the language into the mainstream.


    You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
    next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
    continues to grow.

    Geremy Condra
    geremy condra, Jan 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Aman

    Paul Rubin Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages

    geremy condra <> writes:
    > I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    > made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    > language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    > lack of exceptions, etc ....
    > You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
    > next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
    > continues to grow.


    You know, the functional programming community seems to think of OOP as
    a 1990's thing that didn't work out. Most things that can be done with
    OOP, can be done with higher-order functions and bounded polymorphism
    like in Haskell.

    I'm not sure, but I don't think Erlang has exceptions in the sense we're
    used to. Someone mentioned Erlang uses a VM, but I think there is a
    native compiler called HIPE. Of course there is still a fairly
    substantial runtime system, but that's true of any language with a
    garbage collector and so forth.

    Scala seems like an interesting language that is maybe a bit more
    "practical" than Haskell. I want to try writing something in it. Yes
    it's JVM-bound but maybe the Java aspects can be decoupled somehow.
    Paul Rubin, Jan 17, 2011
    #10
  11. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On 2011-01-16, geremy condra <> wrote:
    > On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
    >>> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
    >>> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
    >>> fooling himself.

    >>
    >> No I wouldn't say that it has reached market penetration yet; but, it
    >> has more momentum then any language I am familiar with.  I wouldn't be
    >> at all surprised to see it becoming quite common in the next five years.

    >
    > I would be very surprised if this were the case. As you point out,
    > languages typically have very long incubation times before they reach
    > any kind of serious market penetration. This seems doubly true for a
    > relatively narrowly targeted language that is in many ways on the
    > wrong side of history.


    I wouldn't say Go is narrowly targeted. It's a systems language that can
    compete in the same domain with scripting languages. It is true that most
    languages have long incubation periods; but, corporate support can change
    that quite a bit. C#, being backed by Microsoft, managed to go mainstream
    pretty quickly.

    >> How long has it taken Python to reach its present level of market
    >> penetration?  And, I still don't see a huge amount of professional Python
    >> use outside of web developement.  Go has only been public for less then
    >> a year.

    >
    > Python's very widely used for scripting and related tasks, and has a
    > pretty big user base in academia and the sciences.


    Python has been widely used by people like us that happen to like the
    language and found ways to use it in our workplaces; but, most of the
    time it is an unofficial use that the company. You still don't see many
    companies doing large scale internal development using Python and you
    definately don't see any doing external developement using a language
    that gives the customers full access to the source code.

    >> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    >> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    >> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.

    >
    > I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    > made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    > language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    > lack of exceptions, etc.


    1. Go has an object model. What it lacks is an object hierarchy where all
    object are decended from a single root "object" since it does
    not support object inheritance as it is used in most languages.
    In Go we simply adapt an object to meet the needs of the newer
    object by adding whatever new functionality is needed.

    2. Go has a similar mechanism to exceptions, defer/panic/recover. It does
    downplay

    >>This is after all the promise the VM based languages made but never
    >> really fulfilled. It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully
    >> capable of taking advantage of multicore processors without having to
    >> deal with the inherent dangers of threading.  There are several good
    >> choices available for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of
    >> them have the support of a company like Google that is capable of the
    >> push required to move the language into the mainstream.

    >
    > You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
    > next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
    > continues to grow.


    I personally doubt that purely functional languages will ever make it
    mainstream. Functional programming has been around for a long time and
    never really ever managed to break out of academic research. The current
    interest in functional programming stems merely because some announced
    that it would be *the* way to utilize multicore computers. Having looked
    into the space somewhat, there is more hype then substantiation for
    purely functional concepts. What the hype did do was return attention
    to SCP style concurrency using actors and MPI and I think that will be
    the direction taken for concurrent programming into the future.

    I believe functional programming will make an impact in the mainstream in
    the form of functionally enabled multiparadigm but not purely functional
    languages. I think you will see code that uses more functional concepts
    as guidelines to better code.
    Tim Harig, Jan 17, 2011
    #11
  12. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages

    On 2011-01-17, Paul Rubin <> wrote:
    > geremy condra <> writes:
    >> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    >> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    >> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    >> lack of exceptions, etc ....
    >> You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
    >> next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
    >> continues to grow.

    >
    > You know, the functional programming community seems to think of OOP as
    > a 1990's thing that didn't work out. Most things that can be done with
    > OOP, can be done with higher-order functions and bounded polymorphism
    > like in Haskell.


    Which is rather interesting because the OOP community had traditionally
    though of functional programming as a 1960's thing that didn't work out.
    Functional programming has been around a long time; but, it only regained
    conciousness outside of academia because of its hyped abilities to
    make threading easier. Unfortunately for functional programming,
    much of that ability actually traces back to MPI and the actor model.
    Using the actor model, it is possible to reap the benefits of easier
    multiprocessing without using any functional programming concepts.

    That isn't to say that the injection of functional programming into the
    mainstream will not have some good affects overall. I expect to see
    functional programming concepts being incorporated into guidelines for
    imperative language use.

    > I'm not sure, but I don't think Erlang has exceptions in the sense we're
    > used to. Someone mentioned Erlang uses a VM, but I think there is a


    Erlang has exceptions that look very much like Python exceptions.

    > native compiler called HIPE. Of course there is still a fairly
    > substantial runtime system, but that's true of any language with a
    > garbage collector and so forth.


    Which is why I say Erlang doesn't compile to a native binary. HIPE has
    been available through the standard OTP for some time now. HIPE generates
    native machine OP codes where possible; but, the generated product must
    still run on the BEAM runtime system. The end result is much faster then
    Python and often faster then Java with a JIT; but, still doesn't rival
    C code. It is possible to optimize things quite a bit by integrating with
    C code; but, then you loose much of the safety provided by Erlang and BEAM.

    This isn't such a tragedy Erlang as it is for other managed VMs because
    Erlang/BEAM makes powerful usage of its VM for fault tolerance mechanisms. I
    don't know of any other VM that allows software upgrades on a running system.
    Tim Harig, Jan 17, 2011
    #12
  13. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages

    Tim Harig schrieb:
    [snip]
    >
    > This isn't such a tragedy Erlang as it is for other managed VMs because
    > Erlang/BEAM makes powerful usage of its VM for fault tolerance mechanisms. I
    > don't know of any other VM that allows software upgrades on a running system.


    styx, the distributed operating system inferno, language: limbo.
    Arndt Roger Schneider, Jan 17, 2011
    #13
  14. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what withPython?]

    On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:12:04 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:

    > Python has been widely used by people like us that happen to like the
    > language and found ways to use it in our workplaces; but, most of the
    > time it is an unofficial use that the company. You still don't see many
    > companies doing large scale internal development using Python and you
    > definately don't see any doing external developement using a language
    > that gives the customers full access to the source code.


    Careful with the FUD there *wink*

    http://www.python.org/about/quotes/


    Sometimes giving access to the source code is a feature, not a bug. Just
    ask Red Hat. And for those who think otherwise, you can always ship
    the .pyc files alone. Or turn your software into a web-app.

    In any case, most companies, and individuals, follow the crowd. They do
    what everybody else does. There are good reasons for this, as well as bad
    reasons, but the end result is that most companies' software development
    is, quite frankly, crap, using the wrong language and the wrong
    methodology for the wrong reasons. If you doubt this, then perhaps you
    would like to explain why most software projects fail and those that
    don't rarely come in on time or on budget?

    It would probably be crap regardless of what language they used
    (Sturgeon's Law), but there are degrees of crap. Being optimized for
    rapid development, at least with Python the average company will develop
    their crap software five times as quickly and at a third the cost than if
    they had chosen C++ or Java.

    You should also consider Paul Graham's essay:

    http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html

    He's hot for Lisp, which is fine, but the lessons hold for Python too.



    --
    Steven
    Steven D'Aprano, Jan 17, 2011
    #14
  15. Aman

    Chris Rebert Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:
    > On 2011-01-16, geremy condra <> wrote:
    >> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:

    <snip>
    >>> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    >>> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    >>> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.

    >>
    >> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    >> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    >> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    >> lack of exceptions, etc.

    <snip>
    >
    > 2. Go has a similar mechanism to exceptions, defer/panic/recover.  It does
    >        downplay
    >


    Downplay what exactly? Seems your paragraph got truncated.

    Cheers,
    Chris
    Chris Rebert, Jan 17, 2011
    #15
  16. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On 2011-01-17, Steven D'Aprano <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 17 Jan 2011 09:12:04 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:
    >
    >> Python has been widely used by people like us that happen to like the
    >> language and found ways to use it in our workplaces; but, most of the
    >> time it is an unofficial use that the company. You still don't see many
    >> companies doing large scale internal development using Python and you
    >> definately don't see any doing external developement using a language
    >> that gives the customers full access to the source code.

    >
    > Careful with the FUD there *wink*


    This isn't FUD, I am as enthusiastic about Python as anybody here; but, I
    also have to be realistic about its actual impact in the industry.

    > http://www.python.org/about/quotes/


    There are always success stories; although, many of those are web based
    companies which, if you will look up the thread, I already excuded
    from the conversation. However from my experience, a small percentage
    of people make their primary income from writing non-web based Python
    software. It certainly hasn't displaced, or even encroached on the
    primary langauge leaders.

    > Sometimes giving access to the source code is a feature, not a bug. Just
    > ask Red Hat. And for those who think otherwise, you can always ship
    > the .pyc files alone. Or turn your software into a web-app.


    Red Hat is the big example; but, few other companies actually make
    substantial profits from FOSS. I am not interested in an idealogy debate
    about whether exposing your source is good or bad; the fact is that those
    who fund software developement have a strong preference to choosing closed
    source. Any software that doesn't provide good methods for closed sourced
    software is going to suffer.

    1. Distributing .pyc files still requires the user to have a Python
    interpreter.

    2. My understanding is that Python bytecode is not guaranteed to be
    compatible between releases?

    3. I have already excluded web apps where Python has a large market
    penetration (were most of the dynamic languages have found
    their niche). My point pertains to those areas where Python
    cannot, or doesn't, compete well with systems level languages
    and that even for its web niche, it didn't arrive here overnight.
    There was a long period where it was less likely the Perl to be
    used for server side web scripting.

    You can see the recent thread about a web based IDE for what I think
    about many web applications.

    > In any case, most companies, and individuals, follow the crowd. They do
    > what everybody else does. There are good reasons for this, as well as bad
    > reasons, but the end result is that most companies' software development
    > is, quite frankly, crap, using the wrong language and the wrong
    > methodology for the wrong reasons. If you doubt this, then perhaps you


    People funding software developement really don't care about the quality
    of the software. They care how much money it will make them. If you
    really think quality matters, then look at Microsoft's meteoric rise
    to dominance. Early Microsoft was not known for its superior quality.
    Only in the last ten years, since they have had to contend with a really
    poor reputation and competition from their own products have they started
    to be conserned with writing better software.

    > methodology for the wrong reasons. If you doubt this, then perhaps you
    > would like to explain why most software projects fail and those that
    > don't rarely come in on time or on budget?


    Yes, lots of projects fail; but, the choice of language is seldom the
    primary, or even a major contributing reason, for the failure. Python
    holds the distinction of having had a book written about one such failed
    project.

    > It would probably be crap regardless of what language they used
    > (Sturgeon's Law), but there are degrees of crap. Being optimized for
    > rapid development, at least with Python the average company will develop
    > their crap software five times as quickly and at a third the cost than if
    > they had chosen C++ or Java.


    If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here.
    Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a
    systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distribution
    without an interpeter, non-necessity of distributing source with the
    product, ability to leverage multiple CPU and multicore systems, and
    simple sequential performance.

    Given that Python does't work well in many areas, we could just give up
    and accept having to write C++ for our day jobs or we can look for a
    language which bridges the gap between those tasks that require C++'s
    level of control and those which work well for dynamic languages.
    Java attempted to do that, and has the market share to show that the
    concept works, but I think that it missed the mark for many needs. It is
    still much lower level then Python for purposes of rapid developement
    and too slow to be competative for non-long-lived tasks.
    Tim Harig, Jan 17, 2011
    #16
  17. Aman

    Tim Harig Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    On 2011-01-17, Chris Rebert <> wrote:
    > On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 1:12 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:
    >> On 2011-01-16, geremy condra <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <> wrote:

    ><snip>
    >>>> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
    >>>> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
    >>>> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.
    >>>
    >>> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
    >>> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
    >>> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
    >>> lack of exceptions, etc.

    ><snip>
    >>
    >> 2. Go has a similar mechanism to exceptions, defer/panic/recover.  It does
    >>        downplay


    there use for less exceptional conditions in favor of function return
    values; however, there is nothing preventing you from using them as you see
    fit to do so.

    > Downplay what exactly? Seems your paragraph got truncated.


    Sorry.
    Tim Harig, Jan 17, 2011
    #17
  18. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages

    Sherm Pendley, 17.01.2011 16:47:
    > I believe the widespread use of some functional techniques in JavaScript
    > had a lot to do with that as well.


    I doubt that there's really "widespread use" of functional techniques in
    JavaScript. Such code may be widely deployed, but that doesn't tell
    anything about the skill level of 'the average' JavaScript developer wrt.
    functional techniques.

    Stefan
    Stefan Behnel, Jan 17, 2011
    #18
  19. Re: [OT] Python like lanugages [was Re: After C++, what with Python?]

    Tim Harig, 17.01.2011 13:25:
    > If I didn't think Python was a good language, I wouldn't be here.
    > Nevertheless, it isn't a good fit for many pieces of software where a
    > systems language is better suited. Reasons include ease of distribution
    > without an interpeter, non-necessity of distributing source with the
    > product, ability to leverage multiple CPU and multicore systems, and
    > simple sequential performance.
    >
    > Given that Python does't work well in many areas, we could just give up
    > and accept having to write C++ for our day jobs or we can look for a
    > language which bridges the gap between those tasks that require C++'s
    > level of control and those which work well for dynamic languages.
    > Java attempted to do that, and has the market share to show that the
    > concept works, but I think that it missed the mark for many needs. It is
    > still much lower level then Python for purposes of rapid developement
    > and too slow to be competative for non-long-lived tasks.


    So seriously need to take a look at Cython.

    http://cython.org

    Stefan
    Stefan Behnel, Jan 17, 2011
    #19
  20. Aman

    Robin Becker Guest

    Re: [OT] Python like lanugages

    On 17/01/2011 16:02, Stefan Behnel wrote:
    > Sherm Pendley, 17.01.2011 16:47:
    >> I believe the widespread use of some functional techniques in JavaScript
    >> had a lot to do with that as well.

    >
    > I doubt that there's really "widespread use" of functional techniques in
    > JavaScript. Such code may be widely deployed, but that doesn't tell anything
    > about the skill level of 'the average' JavaScript developer wrt. functional
    > techniques.
    >
    > Stefan
    >

    I'm not sure whether this counts as functional, but it certainly not traditional
    imperative style

    http://www.vpri.org/pdf/tr2008003_experimenting.pdf

    it was mentioned in some recent clp thread.
    --
    Robin Becker
    Robin Becker, Jan 17, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Dirk Meusel
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,999
    Dirk Meusel
    Aug 19, 2003
  2. Andreas Klemt
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    820
    Andreas Klemt
    Feb 1, 2004
  3. davidw
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    408
    Curt_C [MVP]
    Aug 27, 2004
  4. Tony Morris
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    873
    Roedy Green
    Feb 4, 2006
  5. vasanth kumar
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    110
    Evertjan.
    Oct 3, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page