Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Brandon Van Every]

Andy Freeman wrote:
> "Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> news:<QSf%9.4044$6P2.467421 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> Andy Freeman wrote:
>>> "Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
>>> news:<uV3%9.3165$6P2.355430 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>>>> Andy Freeman wrote:
>>> You're programming so slowly that you don't have any experience
>>> USING those APIs.  Since using is the only reliable measure of
>>> "easy to understand", you're guessing.
>>
>> Not true.  I have to write the test cases.
>
> Test cases aren't the sort of usage that reveals easy to
> use/understand.

So says you.  It's easy for *me* to use/understand, and I like my sense of
style.  I'll worry about it being easy for anyone else to understand someday
when I've got partners.

>> Also, I have to come back months
>> later, read my own code, and understand it again.
>
> And then it's too late.

Too late for what??!?  What are you talking about?

> I've found that to be untrue.  I've found that some tools are faster
> the first time I use them than other tools that I've used for years.

You musta been using some real crud.  I don't care: I know C++ well and am
efficient with it for the kinds of problems I'm tackling.

>>> Moreover, the statement about flexibility is wrong.  The more
>>> flexibile
>>> a language is, the less it costs to recover from any errors or to do
>>> further development.
>>
>> Sounds like a highly theoretical statement that I can't associate
>> with any
>> reasonable engineering reality.
>
> Actually, it's a definition of flexibility.

It's *your* definition of flexibility.  I say, if you want to recover from
errors and ensure further development, Keep It Simple Stupid.  That's the
opposite of flexibility, that's minimalism.  We'll have to agree to
disagree, I'm not interested in a religious war about programming style.
What I do works for me.

> I've never seen code that didn't have to be modified at some point
> during
> its development.  Therefore, ease of modification, that is,
> flexibility, is important.

No, "modification" can mean hitting the DELETE key.  Such as I just did with
some obsolete code of mine.  The scaffolding did help me get to where I am
now, it was useful at the time.  That's the nature of incremental,
minimalist development.

"Modification" can also mean trivial find/replace, which isn't so tough in
C++ if you've designed things well.  You are positing a need for tons of
flexibility, which in a good design may not be needed much at all.  Since
when are we supposed to solve all of our design problems at the language
level?

--
Cheers,                         www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every               Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.