Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Brandon Van Every]

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:
>>> Then what is taking you so long?
>>
>> (1) Designing the mathematical APIs so that the primitives are very
>> easy to understand.
>
> 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.  Also, I have to come back months
later, read my own code, and understand it again.  I've been very successful
in the latter respect.  I'm quite confident that with the approach I'm
taking, what I write will last years and years and years.  And that's the
point: I'm designing my game to be maintained for at least 25 years.

I daresay *everything* I've written has gotten used.  I don't write things I
don't use, it's a waste of time.

> If I KNOW all of the relationships in advance, flexibility doesn't matter.

I determine the relationships mostly on paper, at the design stage.
However, I don't overthink / overspecify on paper.  I simply code it up in
C++ and I'm done with it.  I do not see C++ as getting in my way for this
kind of development.

> My point is that Python/Lisp will let me express relationships faster than
C++.

Well, for the development I describe above, the fastest tool is the tool you
know well.

> 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.

--
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.