Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[John Ochiltree]

Brandon Van Every wrote:

> John Ochiltree wrote:
>>
>> Why do you bother to use c++ as you obviously don't care about reuse.
>> Patterns these days are essential to OO
> 
> You need to realize that there can be OO and reuse without the "Patterns"
> appearing in books like "Design Patterns."  That book has absolutely
> nothing of use to me on a day-to-day basis.
> 
> If you want to say that I use "mathematical patterns," fine.  But I choose
> to avoid the term "pattern" because it already has a common meaning to OO
> people.  And personally, I don't think there would be much point listing
> out
> a whole pile of common "mathematical patterns."  There are so many of
> them! Math has an interesting property: there are lotsa ways to compute
> the same
> thing.  No point wrapping it up in the One True Pattern, you just have to
> know how to do math.
> 
> Quite simply, we had functions and methods and classes and OO long before
> we had patterns.
> 
> --
> 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.

You seem to be suggesting that when you discover a problem to be solved you 
approach it from mathematical first principles? And what sort of 
mathematical pattern could be useful in implementing a singleton for 
instance (leaving aside the obvious distinction required between none and 
unity)? Or the notion of the decorator, or abstract factory or just about 
any common day to day programming problem? You also appear to think that 
patterns provide some sort of direct solution. Implementation is mostly not 
supplied (esp. in GoF) and you have to implement the pattern in whatever 
language you're working in. The solution that a pattern provides is at the 
design level, probably best illustrated by the UML's class and sequence 
diagrams (amongst others). Or perhaps you have an aversion to acyclic 
graphs as well?

John