Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Andy Freeman]

"Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message news:<gID_9.887$ek4.89394 at newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
> Lisp sounds like a bad fit to my current problems.  I'm dealing with simple
> geometric relationships, not complicated ones.

Then what is taking you so long?

> If I had a lot of very
> complicated, freeform geometic relationships to deal with, Lisp would be
> more attractive.

Or, if you had a lot of simple relationships that were slightly different
from one another, both Python and Lisp[1] would let you exploit that similarity
without being forced to keep things as C++ simple as possible.  (I previously
commented on the difference between "as simple as possible" and "as simple
as appropriate".)

Martelli described one way to turn Python implementations into C++.  I've
been using another.

I annotated my Python classes with some meta-information.  I then wrote
a class walker that uses the meta-information to generate equivalent C++.
I wanted the C++ to be as self-checking as the Python and C++ is more
verbose, so said meta-information is significantly larger than the "working"
Python.  (The code walker, on the other hand, is very small.)  However,
the meta-information and the working python in total are much smaller
than the generated C++.  And, since I'm already writing Python faster than
I wrote C++, I'm ahead of the game.

FWIW, my application has lots of simple geometric relationships....

-andy


[1] I think that lisp is a better applications language than Python.
However, Python is close enough, or at least so much better than the
alternatives, that Python's social and glue language advantages are
often decisive.