Re:Comparing the Same Project in Rust, Haskell, C++, Python,...
by zapzupnz on Sunday June 16, 2019 @04:27AM
(#20194474)
I think there are just a lot of people here getting touchy and defensive because other people aren't automatically leaping to false conclusions from this article's data, preferring to imagine that the article validates their personal choice of favourite programming language rather than engage in proper speculation about the quality of the conclusions made within the article.
Re:Comparing the Same Project in Rust, Haskell, C++, Python,...
by galaxyLogic on Sunday June 16, 2019 @11:25AM
(#20195916)
I would agree that the sample size was small so programmer competency may be a big factor.
The interesting takeaway from this study I think is that it does not show that statically typed (even "pure") functional languages are not obviously better than plain old Python.
The interesting thing is not what this study proves, but what it does not prove.
Re:Comparing the Same Project in Rust, Haskell, C++, Python,...
by tanin on Sunday June 16, 2019 @12:41PM
(#20196395)
> The interesting takeaway from this study I think is that it does not show that statically typed (even "pure") functional languages are not obviously better than plain old Python.
Could you elaborate more on this statement? Not a native english speaker here, so I don't quite understand the sentence. Thank you.
Like dragonwriter says, it shows that "Python expresses the concept fairly compactly in the core language without even resorting to stdlib".
It depends on your taste whether you like richer stdlib, and I do. But some don't.
We are talking about how short the code can be in this post, and `my_list[0] if my_list else None` (Python) is longer than `my_list.headOption` (Scala) or `my_list.first` (Ruby).
I'd appreciate more if you elaborate why my example isn't a good illustration on the brevity aspect.