On 2007-03-13, David Cramer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Everyone seems to have misunderstood what I want.
One might suspect that your request was unclear. ;)
> I'm a Python developer, I don't give a rats ass about what
> people say about C#, Python, or c++, they all have their uses.
> My main reasoning for considering C++ as the backend is some
> things (reading memory for example) are much easier to do in
> C++ than in Python, and we already have a lot written in C++.
Reading memory is actually pretty trivial in Python.
> The argument about robustness, has nothing to do with how
> nicely formatted the language is, or how great the tracebacks
> are, it's strictly about how high the memory cost is and how
> much CPU it's going to take.
No, that's not at all what "robust" means (at least not to
anybody I know). Robust means that the program is always
well-behaved. It doesn't crash. It doesn't leak memory. It
isn't full of security holes. It's got nothing to do with
resource usage.
> Python is well known for being high on memory and C++ being
> compiled can be a lot faster for things.
True, but that's nothing to due with robustness. A fast, small
program that crashes, leaks memory, and gives incorrect results
is not robust. A large slow program that doesn't crash
regardless of input and produces correct results is robust.
> Anyways, thanks for everyones feedback, we will most likely go
> with a combination of Python and C++.
I think you're nuts to decide that you need C++ before you've
tested a Python implementation, but it's your nickle. :)
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Make me look like
at LINDA RONSTADT again!!
visi.com
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
