Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#2Interesting perspective on some of python's features, but I hate to see this "python is neither call by value nor call by reference" silliness perpetuated with a link to the original silly blog post. I'm surprised a C++ programmer was caught by that obviously incorrect assertion.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#3Interesting, but it's mostly a few observations about interpreted vs compiled and static vs dynamic typing. And a bit about having a rich collection of 3rd party libraries.
The article wouldn't have been much different had it been C++ vs Ruby/Perl/etc.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#4Rust is better than C++ at “if it compiles, it works” and has a great package manager, so as far as the topics highlighted here go, Rust seems to be the best of both worlds.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#5Rust is better than C++ at “if it compiles, it works” and has a great package manager, so as far as the topics highlighted here go, Rust seems to be the best of both worlds.
One thing where Rust is rather lacking is the missionarism of some people in the community.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#6Rust is better than C++ at “if it compiles, it works” and has a great package manager, so as far as the topics highlighted here go, Rust seems to be the best of both worlds.
One thing where Rust is rather lacking is the missionarism of some people in the community.
So true.
I want rust to take off, as even bounds checking at compile time would save me a lot of trouble.
I don't know if I'll ever be able to deal with the community, though.
On the other hand, I've never seen people get as passionate about c++ as I have python and rust, so maybe that says something about the benefits, even if its just as beginners see them.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
One thing where Rust is rather lacking is the missionarism of some people in the community.
So true. I want rust to take off, as even bounds checking at compile time would save me a lot of trouble. I don't know if I'll ever be able to deal with the community, though. On the other hand, I've never seen people get as passionate about c++ as I have python and rust, so maybe that says something about the benefits, even if its just as beginners see them.
I think you see people passionate because they've dealt with all the pain around C++. That said I don't agree with the GP. As much as I like Rust there's still a ton of areas that keep Rust from being used today. Library selection, even though it's hard to hire for C++, it's easier than Rust and a few other things.
That said for all my personal/greenfield stuff I've been using Rust and really happy with it.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#8Interesting perspective on some of python's features, but I hate to see this "python is neither call by value nor call by reference" silliness perpetuated with a link to the original silly blog post. I'm surprised a C++ programmer was caught by that obviously incorrect assertion.
Claims that Python/C#/Java etc., are call by value where the 'value' is the value of the pointer does not help. It only muddies things. There really ought to be different name for such call semantics and there is. Its called call by object. In C++ lingo call by const pointer comes closest: one cannot change what the pointer points to. However the pointed object may not be a const
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#9Rust is better than C++ at “if it compiles, it works” and has a great package manager, so as far as the topics highlighted here go, Rust seems to be the best of both worlds.
One thing where Rust is rather lacking is the missionarism of some people in the community.
The Rust Evangelism Strike Force is a huge turnoff to the language. It's gotten to the point where we can't have reasoned discussions about C++ or C, let alone about their merits, without a newly enlightened user coming in and trying to direct the conversation to Rust.
It's really okay to have a future where C++ and Rust are both popular, widely used languages. I'm happy to acknowledge the merits of Rust as a language and even talk about them without inserting it into every conversation about low-level computing.
I'm sure the language designers and core developers don't actively endorse this behavior, but somewhere along the way it became a core part of the culture. This world domination shit has to stop.
Re: Python, as Reviewed by a C++ Programmer
#10Good post but I think he'd have a bit more appreciation for Python if he tried writing in a functional style as opposed to object oriented.