2008/9/27 Aaron Castironpi Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > But I, and I imagine I'm not the only one, would love to know the > example that C# developed faster than Python. I suppose the fact that > the line of wx specification that has two identifiers where C# has one > is more of a drain on programmer resources than may commonly be > recognized--- not the same as the cost of one extra word in a paper or > in an editorial. Similarly, maybe the program that has one extra > identifier in a line takes a lot more time to develop.
But I didn't use wx -- that's rather the point. Long before the days of Python, I kept wanting to use Modula2 but kept getting driven back to C because in Modula2 I kept having to write stuff that was already in C libraries. Modula2 was a far better language, but C usually was far more productive because of what went around it. C#'s tight integration with .net and VS mean that it's not a question of one identifier instead of two, it's *zero* identifiers instead of two because the tool does it all for me. Does that mean that C# is a better language than Python? No, of course not. Does it mean that what I was doing was not possible in Python? No, of course not. Does it mean that C# was more productive than Python for me doing that particular job? Yes it does. (FWIW, I also found the .net XML handling easier to cope with on that same job). One day Iron Python plus the VS integration might wean me off C# but last time I looked it wasn't close. Maybe I should take another look and see how it's coming on. -- Tim Rowe -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
