On Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:38:04 +0100 deloptes <delop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin Read wrote: > > > On 15/03/16 07:45, deloptes wrote: > >> I see recently more python code written than real C/C++. > > > > So what? Most programs *shouldn't* be written in C or C++, and I say > > this as someone who loves C and C++ and reaches for one of them by > > default as the language for solving computing problems. (Unless they > > involve substantial quantities of text manipulation, in which case I > > reach for Perl because neither C nor C++ have even *remotely* > > satisfactory capabilities in that regard.) > > > > There are specific circumstances in which a low/medium-level systems > > programming language like C or C++ is the right choice for > > implementing solutions to a computing problem. I submit that *most* > > programs are not subject to those circumstances, and thus there are > > better languages for implementing most programs. > > > > Python is probably the right language less often than people use > > it, but for most jobs people do with it, C or C++ would be just as > > wrong a choice, if not more so. > > I agree with you more or less, however languages like python or perl > open doors to pretend-to-be-programmers. I've seen more often bad > python/perl code than c/c++. C/C++ arrogance at its best! I could maybe understand it if you called C# or Java users pretend-to-be-programmers, but Python, and especially Perl, really aren't as bad or as threatening as you make them out to be. > My observations are also that there is always a penalty, even if you > compile the script code into binary. So if something has to be robust > and fast, one should always prefer c/c++. But this is really out of > topic here. And if Python or Perl are more suited to the task at hand, by all means use them! P.S. What's wrong with OT? OT is fun!
