Re:Why Python Is Slow: Looking Under the Hood (2014)
by weberc2 on Thursday July 07, 2016 @06:07PM
(#12052376)
Assembler isn't statically typed, and C and C++ are particularly bad examples of productive static languages. Go is a much better example, but it disproves your thesis that dynamic languages are more productive than static languages (I have 6 years of Python experience and 3 years of Go experience, and Go is at least as easy as Python for small, single-threaded code bases and it scales much better with team size, code volume, and thread count).
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Why Python Is Slow: Looking Under the Hood (2014)
by BuckRogers on Friday July 08, 2016 @03:12AM
(#12053998)
Yeah, but Go is 20-50% less productive, depending on who you ask. From my experience I'd say it's at least 25% less productive than Python. Not horrible but I think 25% is a minimum value and a quarter of your time adds up. I don't think it's worth the trade off once you consider every language has its warts, Go has its own problems.
Re:Why Python Is Slow: Looking Under the Hood (2014)
by weberc2 on Friday July 08, 2016 @10:43AM
(#12055885)
That's not been my experience, and I'm a Python developer by trade. Python simply doesn't scale well with code size, team size, performance requirements, etc.
Go's biggest problem is a lack of generics, which means that in some cases, you have to fall back to duck typing. So the worst case is no worse than Python's best case.
Re:Why Python Is Slow: Looking Under the Hood (2014)
by BuckRogers on Saturday July 09, 2016 @02:45AM
(#12060443)
My largest Go project has been 40KLOC, after which I felt that Python would've been at least 25% more productive.
The next-step isn't Go. It's Elixir. Or Rust if you need a systems language.