Comparing the Same Project in Rust, Haskell, C++, Python, Scala and OCaml

Post by koala_man » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #57

I think the big big result from this study is: "Python: half the size !". A dynamic language like Python is better here, 2x better. I assume similar results would apply to other dynamic languages like JavaScript, Lisp, Smalltalk, Groovy etc. This does not say that static typing should not be used but I think it shows unequivocally that there is a considerable extra development cost associated with static typing. You…

Post by tomasato » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

steveklabnik wrote: post #43

jpittis wrote: post #11

> I think the smaller differences are also large enough to rule out extraordinary claims, like the ones I’ve read that say writing a compiler in Haskell takes less than half the code of C++ by virtue of the language Specifically the "by virtue of the language" part: Seems to me like it's unreasonable to claim the languages are on equal footing because fancy parser libraries aren't allowed to be used for the project.…

My understanding is that in production compilers, hand rolled parsers are the norm. Parsing libraries are cool, but just aren’t used for big projects.

Post by abecedarius » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 2:26 AM UTC

trishume wrote: post #36

ncmncm wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a good professor would have flunked them for poor judgment.

My professor was definitely a good professor and no way they would have done that. It clearly would have been done as an added challenge for themselves for fun and there's no reason to penalize that.

Post by anaphor » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 2:30 AM UTC

galaxyLogic wrote: post #102

anaphor wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article says that the instructor for the course cautioned against using Haskell because some people overestimated their competency with it. I think it is actually very likely that people would chose a programming language or system for reasons other than how competent they are with it. E.g. to seem "smart" because you wrote your compiler in Haskell, even though you actually have much more experience with Java or…

> would chose a programming language or system for reasons other than how competent they are with it Good point these were students so they were eager to learn new things. Can't blame them. At the same time much of programming is learning new things continually. Some things are harder to learn and master than others. Seems like Haskell might be one such thing, based on what the professor says.

Post by ibejoeb » Sun, Jun 16, 2019, 2:32 AM UTC

tanin wrote: post #88

zmmmmm wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems like a bit of a bold claim when the author themselves directly contradicts that in their own conclusion: > I think my overall takeaway is that design decisions make a much larger difference than the language After all, Scala was 0.7x the size and is one of the most strongly statically typed languages. So you could almost invert your conclusion and say the big result is "Python only saved 20% code lines over ful…

One factor on why Python only saves 20%. Scala has a very rich standard library. Python doesn't. An example is: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/363944/python-idiom-to-r... Ruby would have been a better example of how succinct a dynamic-typed language can be. (I made a similar comment on the parent level.)

    next(iter(your_list), None)