Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Brandon Van Every]

Laura Creighton wrote:
> "Brandon Van Every" <vanevery at 3DProgrammer.com> wrote in message
> news:<a2h_9. 5383$Wu1.411649 at newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>...
>> My contention is, if your approach is incremental and architectural,
>> Python
>> does not offer any amazing payoff over C++.  Python only gives you a
>> big
>> value add when you're trying to be more spontaneous.
>
> The point that some of us were trying to make is that developing in
> C++ is _slow_.

C++ is not the bottleneck of my current development.  At this stage I spend
far, far more time figuring out how to objectify various 3D mathematical
constructs.  I would have the same problems of mathematical decomposition in
any language.  Development is slow for *that* reason, not C++.

> Now it may be that your heavy-duty graphics primatives
> really do have to run like a bat out of hell.

I'm not doing significant optimization at this point.  Mainly the approaches
have to be simple, correct, numerically accurate, and amenable to
optimization later.

> Here is Paul Graham making the same point, but saying that it was
> Lisp that made him productive.

Lisp sounds like a bad fit to my current problems.  I'm dealing with simple
geometric relationships, not complicated ones.  If I had a lot of very
complicated, freeform geometic relationships to deal with, Lisp would be
more attractive.

--
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.