4 ms·
Because the stated goal was to use Python "whenever possible" and judging by the python2 bashing at the end of the article, the author is a true believer yet th
by stefantalpalaru 14y ago
Because the stated goal was to use Python "whenever possible" and judging by the python2 bashing at the end of the article, the author is a true believer yet the best he could do was 17% of the total code.
This also clashes with the belief in the Python community that performance is not an issue because you just rewrite those few critical sections in C/C++. How's 75% as one possible definition of "few"?
- buster 14y agoWhat stupid comparison is this? Of course there will be more lines of code in C++, but i bet you that 10 lines of python do more then 10 lines of C++. As another comment puts it: How much more C++ would there be without python?
- coldtea 14y ago>Because the stated goal was to use Python "whenever possible" and judging by the python2 bashing at the end of the article, the author is a true believer yet the best he could do was 17% of the total code. Of the total code of a very specific application, with very specific performance needs. For others applications, including servers, the ratio could vary widely.
- eksith 14y agoBashing might be a bit harsh. Looks like the author is expressing legitimate concern about the proliferation of Python 2 over 3 and, let's face it, there are a lot of differences while 3 "is the future" as it says. The percentages may or may not be simply a case of C++ verbosity, but without actually browsing the source, we shouldn't jump the gun on exactly what percentage of "heavy lifting" C++ is doing vs. Python.
- lmm 14y agoIf they're comparing by lines of code, the 17% that's in python may well contain most of the logic.