4 ms·

C# is faster than python and as easy to use.

• monkpit 4y ago
  Apparently Jupyter works with .net now. Cool
• dataflow 4y ago
  As nice as it is, C# is definitely not as easy to use as Python.
  • radicalbyte 4y ago
    If you're using an IDE (Rider or Visual Studio) and avoid the Enterprise frameworks, then it's much easier to use than Python. Tooling makes a huge difference, no more digging through the sometimes flakey Python documentation and cursing compatibility issues with random dependencies not supporting Apple Silicon.
    • dataflow 4y ago
      I agree tooling makes a huge difference but I specifically said this with the understanding that you're using C# with Visual Studio. Some stuff will be easier in C#, but a lot of other stuff just isn't as easy as in Python. At the risk of setting up a strawman for people to punch down, try comparing how easy it is to do the equivalent of something like this in C#, and feel free to use as much IDE magic as you'd like: x = [t[1] for t in enumerate(range(1, 50, 4)) if t[0] % 3 == 0][2:] Was it actually easier? There's a million other examples I could write here, but I'm hoping that one-liner will be sufficient for illustration purposes.
      • eterm 4y ago
        Here's a one liner in c# for that: Enumerable.Range(1,50).Where((x,i) => i % 4 == 0).Where(e => e % 3 == 0).Skip(1).Select(e => e+4) Okay, so you might consider that last e+4 cheating and against the spirit, but I couldn't be bothered to spend money upgrading my linqpad to support the latest .net with Enumerable.Chunk which makes taking two at a time easier for the first part. Edit: more in spirit: Enumerable.Range(1,50).Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0).Skip(1).Select(e => e + 1)
        • dataflow 4y ago
          Nah that part I'm not worried about. The "cheating" is omitting the rest of the line. What you really needed was: var y = Enumerable.Range(1, 50).Where((x, i) => i % 4 == 0).Where(e => e % 3 == 0).Skip(1).Select(e => e + 4).ToArray(); Compare that against: y = [t[1] for t in enumerate(range(1, 50, 4)) if t[0] % 3 == 0][2:] It's almost twice as long, and doesn't exactly make up for it with readability either.
          • eterm 4y ago
            It's not "twice as long" in any syntactic sense, and readability is easily fixed: Enumerable.Range(1,50) .Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0) .Skip(1) .Select(e => e + 1) That's very understandable, it's clear what it does, and if your complaint is that dotnet prefers to name expressions like Skip rather than magic syntax, we can disagree on what make things readable and easy to maintain.
            • dataflow 4y ago
              It's literally "twice as long" syntactically. 120 vs. 67 characters. And again, you keep omitting the rest of the line. (Why?) What you should've written in response was: var y = Enumerable.Range(1,50) .Where(e => e % 4 == 0 && e % 3 == 0) .Skip(1) .Select(e => e + 1) .ToArray(); Compare: y = [t[1] for t in enumerate(range(1, 50, 4)) if t[0] % 3 == 0][2:] And (again), my complaint isn't about LINQ or numbers or these functions in particular. This is just a tiny one-liner to illustrate with one example. I could write a ton more. There's just stuff Python is better at, there's other stuff C# is better at, that's just a fact of life. I switch between them depending on what I'm doing.
              • eterm 4y ago
                The ToArray is unneccessay, it's much more idiomatic dotnet to deal with IEnumerable all the way through. The only meaningful difference in lengths is that C# doesn't have an Enumable.Range(start, stop, increment) overload but it's easy enough to write one, and then it'd be essentially the same length.
      • radicalbyte 4y ago
        There's very little difference between the two as long as you're using modern versions of both and add your own functions to fill any API gaps and are using type hinting properly in Python. My C# tends to be "larger" because I use more vertical whitespace and pylint is rather opinionated.. :) Where you can complain about C# - and I do - is where you're having to write (or work with) code which has been force to stick to strict architectural and style standards. That makes code-bases which are very hard to understand for newbies and are verbose. On the flip side, once you start doing anything even slightly interesting with Python you run into the crappy package management. The end result of which is lots of frustration getting projects working and a lot of time wasted on administration vs work.
  • pelorat 4y ago
    But who compares Python with C#, they are not even in the same league? Python is a glorified bash scripting replacement with a mediocre JIT engine. Modern C# is faster than Go which is what it is competing against.
    • doliveira 4y ago
      Does Python even have JIT?
      • gpderetta 4y ago
        certainly not the standard CPython.
• radicalbyte 4y ago
  I'd argue easier and it plays much better cross CPU than Python. Once you pass the initial JIT phase it's also extremely fast. As the sister post says: Go is in the same class as C# only it's a bit verbose/ugly in comparison but it compiles to native machine code..
• fatnoah 4y ago
  As a long-time C# user who started life with coding for embedded systems with C, graduated to C++ business tiers, and then on to C#, my personal crusade has always been to show that it's very possible to make things go pretty fast with C#. One of my favorite moments happened after my C#-based back-end company was acquired by an all-[FASTER LANGUAGE] company. We had to connect our platforms and hit a shared performance goal of supporting 1 billion events/month, which amounted to something like (IIRC) 380 per second. Our platform hit that mark running on 3 server setup w/2 Amazon Medium FE servers and a SQL backend. The other company's bits choked at 10 per second, running on roughly 50x the infra. Poorly written and architected code is a bigger drag than the specific language in many cases.