5 ms·

I’d hire a Python developer any day of the week over either Go/Rust. Need some data science work done, easy. Need a web server done, easy. Need things to be fa

I’d hire a Python developer any day of the week over either Go/Rust. Need some data science work done, easy. Need a web server done, easy. Need things to be fast and relatively performant done, easy.

smolder 3y ago
> Python > fast This is only true if you are relying mainly on compiled extensions to do the performance-critical work. Unassisted raw python is super slow compared to Go or Rust.
- memefrog 3y ago
  So what? That's how things are structured in Python. It's one of the advantages of the language. Sure it'd be nice to be like Common Lisp, where you can write dynamic/slow and optimised/fast code in the same language, depending on (declare). But Python is the next best thing. If you want to write slow, dynamic, hacky code in Rust you have to write 'unwrap' and 'clone' all over the place, obscuring the logic.
  - thumbuddy 3y ago
    Is it obscuring the logic to explicitly handle the cases where an item may not exist, or to tell an engineer when they are copying memory? In my opinion it's the opposite.
    - memefrog 3y ago
      When you want to write some simple test code to solve a problem, then it is absolutely obscuring the logic to write out all the details of memory management. Some people in this thread have made the claim that Rust is okay for quick hacky code to work out a solution to a problem, because you can just pepper your code with unwrap and clone and then factor them out later during optimisation. The point I am making is that even if that approach works[0], it heavily obscures your business logic to have it peppered with memory management details when you're just trying to figure out a basic algorithm to solve a problem. The approach I much prefer is to Plan to Throw One Away[1]. I'd rather work out the solution to my problem in a slow and dynamic language like Python, and then either rewrite it entirely in C or, if possible, just rewrite some inner loop in C and call it from Python. [0]: I don't think this approach actually works. You can't take a program that has been designed around copying data absolutely everywhere, all over the place, and make it very efficient. You can make it more efficient than it was originally, but I've never seen it done. You can only really work out the right way to manage memory when you know the algorithm, and you can only know the algorithm once you are done. Refactoring from one memory management strategy to another might be possible in theory but is awful in practice, even in Rust. [1]: https://wiki.c2.com/?PlanToThrowOneAway https://wiki.c2.com/?PlanToThrowOneAway
      - thumbuddy 3y ago
        I know where you're at because I used to feel the same way. But what if rust was designed to make manual memory management as painless as possible? IE, it's the antithesis of a language like C because when you learn it's syntax all practical memory management is done by basically writing OCAML. In rust there are two forms of memory management, 1. You write rust. 2. You write unsafe rust. You never really have to refactor to suite a different style. Infact changing allocators is as simple as running "cargo install". Rust isn't as bad as people make it out to be but you do have to invest some time to learning it. But as far as throw one away goes... You can write it in rust, and then slightly adjust when you do things like clone so nothing gets thrown away unless you really botched it the first time you wrote it.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  Orders of magnitude slower with few options for improvement except writing in another language in a lot of cases.
- ssokolow 3y ago
  Yeah. The presence or absence of compiled extensions is a HUGE factor. Implementation design is also huge. For example: Geeqie is an image viewer/manager. It's a fork of the abandoned GQView and is apparently made in the image of Windows 9x-era ACDSee. It's written in C++ and uses GdkPixbuf. My first prototype for re-creating Geeqie's collection view in PyQt so I could integrate it into a different kind of image management tool was twice as fast at loading thumbnails. (Something on the order of 20s vs. 10s for loading somewhere around 7000 thumbnails on a 65W TDP dual-core Athlon from 2011.) I tried quickly benchmarking GdkPixbuf, QImage, Pillow, and the Rust image crate against each other and found that, if anything, GdkPixbuf is a little faster than PyQt... but whatever Geeqie is doing cuts that performance in half. (And that's with the Python version clamped to single-threaded image loading because I haven't yet written a smart I/O scheduler to allow parallelism on SSDs while avoiding thrashing rotating drives. Experiments with the QThreadPool-limiting line commented out show a speed-up from 10s to roughly 7s, consistent with how much of the overall system CPU capacity was taken up with other things like Firefox at the time.)
bamazizi 3y ago
Good on you! You have to be product/solution focused not tech glitter! Jobs to be done and the fastest/cheapest way to get there!
mattlondon 3y ago
Need something maintainable and safe at run-time, not easy. I'd also argue that python and performance is totally untrue. Python is probably only second to bitcoin mining in terms of wasted CPU time and global CO2 emissions. Every python programmer that switches to go or rust is the equivalent of removing 15 cars off of the road after all.
sethammons 3y ago
Having created and maintained python and go web servers, python never again if I have a choice. Web servers live on concurrency. It is also nice knowing what was passed into a function. Caching in memory is much more approachable in go; making that thread safe in python is a chore. Oh, and performance. Not even close. Go is easily 20x performant in each case we've migrated.
lawn 3y ago
You're not really talking about Python/Go/Rust developers, but about your preference for Python as a technology. Also, Python is super slow comparatively and is only fast if it delegates to other languages.
thumbuddy 3y ago
It's a jack of all trades but a master of none. Nothing wrong with that until there is. Then you end up with two languages. This works fine for a while. Until you need 3... Next thing you know half your code was rewritten in other languages and cleaned up. Start realizing ya could have started your projects using different tools. Not pooping on python it's... Fine. But I am not of the opinion that it's a great choice for all projects because technically "it can" do "anything".
- ssokolow 3y ago
  That's actually one of my reasons for writing in Rust whenever possible. The Rust ecosystem has a broad collection of tooling for using Rust to extend other languages, so there's minimal chance something I wrote in Rust will have to be rewritten to use it in a project in another language. See https://www.hobofan.com/rust-interop/ https://www.hobofan.com/rust-interop/ and https://areweextendingyet.github.io/ https://areweextendingyet.github.io/ In Python's case, there's also maturin, which aims to make building and publishing Rust-based wheels as easy as Cargo makes doing so for Rust-based crates. ...plus, in the worst case, Rust CLI tools start very quickly, so forking a Rust process for poor man's FFI is more viable, and Serde plus a JSON Schema generator like schemars will streamline microservice-based options.

smolder 3y ago

> Python > fast This is only true if you are relying mainly on compiled extensions to do the performance-critical work. Unassisted raw python is super slow compared to Go or Rust.

memefrog 3y ago
So what? That's how things are structured in Python. It's one of the advantages of the language. Sure it'd be nice to be like Common Lisp, where you can write dynamic/slow and optimised/fast code in the same language, depending on (declare). But Python is the next best thing. If you want to write slow, dynamic, hacky code in Rust you have to write 'unwrap' and 'clone' all over the place, obscuring the logic.
- thumbuddy 3y ago
  Is it obscuring the logic to explicitly handle the cases where an item may not exist, or to tell an engineer when they are copying memory? In my opinion it's the opposite.
  - memefrog 3y ago
    When you want to write some simple test code to solve a problem, then it is absolutely obscuring the logic to write out all the details of memory management. Some people in this thread have made the claim that Rust is okay for quick hacky code to work out a solution to a problem, because you can just pepper your code with unwrap and clone and then factor them out later during optimisation. The point I am making is that even if that approach works[0], it heavily obscures your business logic to have it peppered with memory management details when you're just trying to figure out a basic algorithm to solve a problem. The approach I much prefer is to Plan to Throw One Away[1]. I'd rather work out the solution to my problem in a slow and dynamic language like Python, and then either rewrite it entirely in C or, if possible, just rewrite some inner loop in C and call it from Python. [0]: I don't think this approach actually works. You can't take a program that has been designed around copying data absolutely everywhere, all over the place, and make it very efficient. You can make it more efficient than it was originally, but I've never seen it done. You can only really work out the right way to manage memory when you know the algorithm, and you can only know the algorithm once you are done. Refactoring from one memory management strategy to another might be possible in theory but is awful in practice, even in Rust. [1]: https://wiki.c2.com/?PlanToThrowOneAway https://wiki.c2.com/?PlanToThrowOneAway
    - thumbuddy 3y ago
      I know where you're at because I used to feel the same way. But what if rust was designed to make manual memory management as painless as possible? IE, it's the antithesis of a language like C because when you learn it's syntax all practical memory management is done by basically writing OCAML. In rust there are two forms of memory management, 1. You write rust. 2. You write unsafe rust. You never really have to refactor to suite a different style. Infact changing allocators is as simple as running "cargo install". Rust isn't as bad as people make it out to be but you do have to invest some time to learning it. But as far as throw one away goes... You can write it in rust, and then slightly adjust when you do things like clone so nothing gets thrown away unless you really botched it the first time you wrote it.
thumbuddy 3y ago
Orders of magnitude slower with few options for improvement except writing in another language in a lot of cases.
ssokolow 3y ago
Yeah. The presence or absence of compiled extensions is a HUGE factor. Implementation design is also huge. For example: Geeqie is an image viewer/manager. It's a fork of the abandoned GQView and is apparently made in the image of Windows 9x-era ACDSee. It's written in C++ and uses GdkPixbuf. My first prototype for re-creating Geeqie's collection view in PyQt so I could integrate it into a different kind of image management tool was twice as fast at loading thumbnails. (Something on the order of 20s vs. 10s for loading somewhere around 7000 thumbnails on a 65W TDP dual-core Athlon from 2011.) I tried quickly benchmarking GdkPixbuf, QImage, Pillow, and the Rust image crate against each other and found that, if anything, GdkPixbuf is a little faster than PyQt... but whatever Geeqie is doing cuts that performance in half. (And that's with the Python version clamped to single-threaded image loading because I haven't yet written a smart I/O scheduler to allow parallelism on SSDs while avoiding thrashing rotating drives. Experiments with the QThreadPool-limiting line commented out show a speed-up from 10s to roughly 7s, consistent with how much of the overall system CPU capacity was taken up with other things like Firefox at the time.)

bamazizi 3y ago

Good on you! You have to be product/solution focused not tech glitter! Jobs to be done and the fastest/cheapest way to get there!

mattlondon 3y ago

Need something maintainable and safe at run-time, not easy. I'd also argue that python and performance is totally untrue. Python is probably only second to bitcoin mining in terms of wasted CPU time and global CO2 emissions. Every python programmer that switches to go or rust is the equivalent of removing 15 cars off of the road after all.

sethammons 3y ago

Having created and maintained python and go web servers, python never again if I have a choice. Web servers live on concurrency. It is also nice knowing what was passed into a function. Caching in memory is much more approachable in go; making that thread safe in python is a chore. Oh, and performance. Not even close. Go is easily 20x performant in each case we've migrated.

lawn 3y ago

You're not really talking about Python/Go/Rust developers, but about your preference for Python as a technology. Also, Python is super slow comparatively and is only fast if it delegates to other languages.

thumbuddy 3y ago

It's a jack of all trades but a master of none. Nothing wrong with that until there is. Then you end up with two languages. This works fine for a while. Until you need 3... Next thing you know half your code was rewritten in other languages and cleaned up. Start realizing ya could have started your projects using different tools. Not pooping on python it's... Fine. But I am not of the opinion that it's a great choice for all projects because technically "it can" do "anything".

ssokolow 3y ago
That's actually one of my reasons for writing in Rust whenever possible. The Rust ecosystem has a broad collection of tooling for using Rust to extend other languages, so there's minimal chance something I wrote in Rust will have to be rewritten to use it in a project in another language. See https://www.hobofan.com/rust-interop/ https://www.hobofan.com/rust-interop/ and https://areweextendingyet.github.io/ https://areweextendingyet.github.io/ In Python's case, there's also maturin, which aims to make building and publishing Rust-based wheels as easy as Cargo makes doing so for Rust-based crates. ...plus, in the worst case, Rust CLI tools start very quickly, so forking a Rust process for poor man's FFI is more viable, and Serde plus a JSON Schema generator like schemars will streamline microservice-based options.