3 ms·
Yes, that's my whole point. Where in the stack do you see that Python performances matter? Only one software out of a 1000 will actually need it. The others w
by BiteCode_dev 5y ago
Yes, that's my whole point.
Where in the stack do you see that Python performances matter?
Only one software out of a 1000 will actually need it. The others will mostly do plumbing or automation.
And scripting languages excel at both.
If you don't fall in that category, then yes, do use a fast language. If you are coding a chat server, use Erlang. If you want to do a rendering engine, use Rust. But if you most likely want to code your company CRUD software and glue it to some external services and providers, use Python.
- rixed 5y ago> Where in the stack do you see that Python performances matter? As we just saw, most of the code forming your stack is not written in python because its performance would not allow it. > Only one software out of a 1000 will actually need it. Not what I see from your example. It seems to me that you are overinflating the volume of the python code that you wrote and are blind to the huge volume of performance critical code you just take for granted. You probably mean: most of the code that most of the programmer write is disposable code assembling reusable libraries. This code performance does not matter therefore python is fine. I agree on this. The problem I see with this reasoning though is that since python is so slow and error prone compared to compiled alternatives that it is unfit when scaled up from small disposable programs to largish permanent software, in a world where all programs trend to grow and stick in production for longer than expected.