Re: Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise
On Feb 21, 10:22 am, Nicola Musatti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Feb 21, 6:31 pm, Paul Boddie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > The main reason why C++ has declined in usage is because almost > > everything of practical value is optional. No, disagree. > The main reason why C++ has declined in usage is because it never got > the kind of corporate marketing enjoyed by Java and C#. I'm inclined to disagree for two reasons. C++ is a very complex language. Java (and the later C#) less so. Couple that with reduced debugging time due to garbage collection and fewer pointer problems, a lot of us decided a factor of 2x in personal productivity was worth it. Runtime was initially an impediment, and still is for desktop applications, but the trade was worth it. Corporate marketing, and corporate attention in general, saw to it that Java was well equipped with libraries and frameworks addressing enterprise application needs. ...but the *big* reason Java won over C+ + is because your application became stable sooner. ...with arguably fewer problems later. And the migration to Python is due in large part because of an additional factor of 3-4x in personal productivity (over Java). Improvements in runtime performance wouldn't hurt, but for many applications that's not an issue. (If optional data typing were offered, Python's penetration in the enterprise space would be even higher, and I suspect there would be performance gains as well.) Larry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise
PS: And tools like ShedSkin and Pyrex benefit. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Article of interest: Python pros/cons for the enterprise
> You mean static data typing, right? Are there any known holes in the > dynamic type system that still need to be plugged? (I haven't heard of > any.) My apologies. You are right, I meant optional, static typing. Thanks for the catch Jeff. Python's dynamic typing is just fine. But if I know the type, I want the ability to nail it. ...local variables, arguments, return values, etc And if I don't know or care, I'd leave it to dynamic typing. The need for a lot of doc goes away, those new to the language that think it's a big deal can be explicit, and as I suggested earlier, I think the byte code interpreter could be made a lot smarter and faster. ...and corporate acceptance would follow. Larry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Ideas for master's thesis
> I would like to do something with this language, yet > I don't know if there are any needs/science fields, that could be used > as a basis for a thesis. Personally, I'd like to see *optional* data typing added to Python perhaps along the lines of what was done in Pyrex. You declare the data type when you know it, or when it matters, and skip it otherwise. Your paper could analyze its pros and cons, analyze any potential performance gains, and recommend how to implement it. Your professor will suggest some additional questions. I suspect, if the type be known and declared, the interpreter could be streamlined and quicker, you might get asserts for free, and perhaps, Python becomes even more self-documenting. Perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen a strong analytical case made for or against optional data typing. Your paper? Larry -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
