3 ms·
Assembler isn't statically typed, and C and C++ are particularly bad examples of productive static languages. Go is a much better example, but it disproves your
by weberc2 10y ago
Assembler isn't statically typed, and C and C++ are particularly bad examples of productive static languages. Go is a much better example, but it disproves your thesis that dynamic languages are more productive than static languages (I have 6 years of Python experience and 3 years of Go experience, and Go is at least as easy as Python for small, single-threaded code bases and it scales much better with team size, code volume, and thread count).
- BuckRogers 10y agoYeah, but Go is 20-50% less productive, depending on who you ask. From my experience I'd say it's at least 25% less productive than Python. Not horrible but I think 25% is a minimum value and a quarter of your time adds up. I don't think it's worth the trade off once you consider every language has its warts, Go has its own problems.
- weberc2 10y agoThat's not been my experience, and I'm a Python developer by trade. Python simply doesn't scale well with code size, team size, performance requirements, etc. Go's biggest problem is a lack of generics, which means that in some cases, you have to fall back to duck typing. So the worst case is no worse than Python's best case.
- BuckRogers 10y agoMy largest Go project has been 40KLOC, after which I felt that Python would've been at least 25% more productive. The next-step isn't Go. It's Elixir. Or Rust if you need a systems language.