Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Python > Re: After C++, what with Python?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: After C++, what with Python?

 
 
Aman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
@nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Nagle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On 1/15/2011 10:48 PM, Aman wrote:
> @nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?


No, Python is quite useful, but on the slow side. If you're I/O
bound, not time critical, or otherwise not performance constrained,
it's quite useful. The language is really quite good, but there's
some excessive dynamism which has caused every attempt at an optimizing
implementation to fail.

John Nagle

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Tim Harig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On 2011-01-16, John Nagle <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 1/15/2011 10:48 PM, Aman wrote:
>> @nagle Means you are suggesting me not to proceed with Python because I've had experience with C++?

>
> No, Python is quite useful, but on the slow side. If you're I/O
> bound, not time critical, or otherwise not performance constrained,
> it's quite useful. The language is really quite good, but there's
> some excessive dynamism which has caused every attempt at an optimizing
> implementation to fail.


Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.

http://golang.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
Tim Harig <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
> Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
> It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
> Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
> still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.


Go has some nice aspects but it is much lower level than Python. If you
want a statically typed, compiled language closer to Python's level, I
know of some projects that have switched from Python to Ocaml. If you
want dynamic types, I guess there's Dylan, Lisp, or possibly Erlang.
There is also Haskell, but I think using it takes a much different
mind-set than Python usually brings out.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Harig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On 2011-01-16, Paul Rubin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Tim Harig <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Those who are concerned about performance should check out Go.
>> Garbage collection, duck typing, and compiles to a native binary.
>> It creates a great middle ground between C++ and Python. Any C and/or
>> Python programmer will feel right at home with the language. It is
>> still a young language; but, I have been using it for some useful things.

>
> Go has some nice aspects but it is much lower level than Python. If you


It is a little lower; but, I wouldn't say much lower. My Go code is
much more similar in concept, feel, and size to my Python code then it
is to my C code.

> want a statically typed, compiled language closer to Python's level, I
> know of some projects that have switched from Python to Ocaml. If you


I have head good things about Ocaml; but, I have never taken the time to
learn the language myself. It never reached a critical mass of interest
from me to consider adopting it. One of the things that gives me hope
for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Application...r-2011-480790/

> want dynamic types, I guess there's Dylan, Lisp, or possibly Erlang.


I am a big fan of Erlang and it's ability to create fault tolerant
systems; but, it isn't really a general purpose programming language.
It also runs inside of a VM which means that it doesn't produce native
binary.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steven D'Aprano
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:

> One of the things that gives me hope
> for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
> rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
> Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.


If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
fooling himself.

When I design my new language, I will make sure I choose a name such that
any attempt to search for it on job sites will produce oodles and oodles
and oodles of false positives, all the better to ensure that simple-
minded "top language of ..." surveys will give a massively inflated job
count.

I think I'll call it "Salary".



--
Steven
 
Reply With Quote
 
Tim Harig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Jan 2011 09:47:35 +0000, Tim Harig wrote:
>
>> One of the things that gives me hope
>> for Go is that it is backed by Google so I expect that it may gain some
>> rather rapid adoption. It has made enough of a wake to grab one of
>> Eweek's 18 top languages for 2011.

>
> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
> fooling himself.


No I wouldn't say that it has reached market penetration yet; but, it
has more momentum then any language I am familiar with. I wouldn't be
at all surprised to see it becoming quite common in the next five years.

How long has it taken Python to reach its present level of market
penetration? And, I still don't see a huge amount of professional Python
use outside of web developement. Go has only been public for less then
a year.

Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
distribution capabilities of a full systems level language. This is after
all the promise the VM based languages made but never really fulfilled.
It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully capable of
taking advantage of multicore processors without having to deal with the
inherent dangers of threading. There are several good choices available
for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of them have the
support of a company like Google that is capable of the push required
to move the language into the mainstream.

> When I design my new language, I will make sure I choose a name such that
> any attempt to search for it on job sites will produce oodles and oodles
> and oodles of false positives, all the better to ensure that simple-
> minded "top language of ..." surveys will give a massively inflated job
> count.


I would agree that Go wasn't the best idea for a language name from the
search perspective. One would have though a company like Google would have
been cognizant of those limitations...
 
Reply With Quote
 
rantingrick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Jan 16, 5:03*am, Tim Harig <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language. *


Bravo!

> This is after
> all the promise the VM based languages made but never really fulfilled.
> It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully capable of
> taking advantage of multicore processors without having to deal with the
> inherent dangers of threading.


Bravissimo!!!!!!

> There are several good choices available
> for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of them have the
> support of a company like Google that is capable of the push required
> to move the language into the mainstream.


Maybe. I have skimmed over Go and while it looks "somewhat" promising
i always miss the batteries included and elegant syntax of Python. Of
course the language is still young so i hope they plan to invest into
it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
geremy condra
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2011
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 3:03 AM, Tim Harig <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 2011-01-16, Steven D'Aprano <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> If the author thinks that Go is a "tried and true" (his words, not mine)
>> language "where programmers can go to look for work", I think he's
>> fooling himself.

>
> No I wouldn't say that it has reached market penetration yet; but, it
> has more momentum then any language I am familiar with. *I wouldn't be
> at all surprised to see it becoming quite common in the next five years.


I would be very surprised if this were the case. As you point out,
languages typically have very long incubation times before they reach
any kind of serious market penetration. This seems doubly true for a
relatively narrowly targeted language that is in many ways on the
wrong side of history.

> How long has it taken Python to reach its present level of market
> penetration? *And, I still don't see a huge amount of professional Python
> use outside of web developement. *Go has only been public for less then
> a year.


Python's very widely used for scripting and related tasks, and has a
pretty big user base in academia and the sciences.

> Personally, I think the time is ripe for a language that bridges the
> gap between ease of use dynamic languages with the performance and
> distribution capabilities of a full systems level language.


I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
lack of exceptions, etc.

>This is after all the promise the VM based languages made but never
> really fulfilled. It is also high time for a fully concurrent language fully
> capable of taking advantage of multicore processors without having to
> deal with the inherent dangers of threading. *There are several good
> choices available for both a even a few that fit both bills; but, few of
> them have the support of a company like Google that is capable of the
> push required to move the language into the mainstream.


You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
continues to grow.

Geremy Condra
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Rubin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-17-2011
geremy condra <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> I agree. That does not make Go that language, and many of the choices
> made during Go's development indicate that they don't think it's that
> language either. I'm speaking specifically of its non-object model,
> lack of exceptions, etc ....
> You might be right, but I doubt we'll know one way or the other in the
> next 5 years. Personally, I'm hoping that functional language use
> continues to grow.


You know, the functional programming community seems to think of OOP as
a 1990's thing that didn't work out. Most things that can be done with
OOP, can be done with higher-order functions and bounded polymorphism
like in Haskell.

I'm not sure, but I don't think Erlang has exceptions in the sense we're
used to. Someone mentioned Erlang uses a VM, but I think there is a
native compiler called HIPE. Of course there is still a fairly
substantial runtime system, but that's true of any language with a
garbage collector and so forth.

Scala seems like an interesting language that is maybe a bit more
"practical" than Haskell. I want to try writing something in it. Yes
it's JVM-bound but maybe the Java aspects can be decoupled somehow.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
if instance variable get initialize after assigning some values or after constructor then when does static variable get initialize Tony Morris Java 3 02-04-2006 08:39 AM
.NET server becomes slow after several hours, go back normal after restarting IIS davidw ASP .Net 3 08-27-2004 06:25 PM
After adding Textboxes to calender control, how to get values after Postback? Andreas Klemt ASP .Net 0 02-01-2004 02:54 AM
Datalist selects Item after first click, but does apply the SelectedItemTemplate after the second click only Dirk Meusel ASP .Net 1 08-19-2003 09:56 AM



Advertisments