Python vs. C++ Builder - speed of development

[Alex Martelli]

Brandon Van Every wrote:

> Alex Martelli wrote:
>>
>> Python is ALSO a great productivity tool for average programmers,
>> raising their productivity (on the some hypothetical scale) from, say,
>> 20 to 60.
> 
> Why don't they just shoot themselves in the foot with all the new
> concerns, until they've mastered the drill and hence have become better
> programmers?

Because the "new concerns" are not necessarily major ones.  One
can get started and be very productive with Python surprisingly
fast.

> Sounds like the progression might be more like 20, 25, 15,
> 10, 20, 25, 30,
> 60.  Over that time period, how much better would they have gotten with
> C++?

Your ear is playing you false, again.  The short time it takes
to become highly productive with Python does not afford any
substantial chance of becoming much better with C++: the
latter is just too complex for any _rapid_ improvement.


>> Therefore, it IS indeed no magic bullet -- it doesn't make the
>> average programmer the equal of the excellent one -- but it would
>> still be a stupid choice to forego its advantages at any level.
> 
> You would not inflict new tools on dummies needlessly.  You have to allow
> for training time to achieve benefits.

The key word that makes your statement irrelevant is "needlessly".

But let's start with "dummies" first: if they ARE dummies then
they should avoid C++ at almost any cost -- it's TOTALLY unsuitable
for programmers outside the top few centiles anyway (being in the
top few centiles is a necessary, but not a sufficient, condition
for being in one of the very few cases where C++ is advisable).

So, supposing they ARE about average among the people who possibly
SHOULD be programming in C++ -- making them two or three times
more productive is NOT needless: it's the kind of productivity
jump that can make the difference between a firm's success and
failure, indeed between a whole nation's impoverishment and
enrichment.


Alex