3 ms·
>Why doesn't it look good for python? Because it directly contradicts the "only 20% of your code is performance sensitive and the other 80% can be scripting la
by papsosouid 14y ago
>Why doesn't it look good for python?
Because it directly contradicts the "only 20% of your code is performance sensitive and the other 80% can be scripting language X" nonsense that scripting language apologists constantly parrot with no evidence. This is a good example of how scripting languages are in fact not well suited to application development, and should instead be used for scripting.
- fijal 14y agoOr you should use a fast Python interpreter instead of the slow one. The 20/80 (or 10/90 or so) is mostly nonsense in my experience too.
- halostatue 14y agoI would argue that BIND isn't "merely" an application: it's almost kernel-level in what it needs to do and how it needs to respond. At a minimum, it's system-level—but definitely not application-level.
- papsosouid 14y agoThere is nothing almost kernel-level about it. It is an application. You seem to be trying to draw a very arbitrary distinction between applications and applications that you want to consider special for no particular reason.
- DannoHung 14y agoThe question isn't how much Python there is relative to C++, the question is how much C++ there would be if there were no Python. To put it more concisely: "only 20% of your logic is performance sensitive and the other 80% can be encoded in scripting language X leading to a significant reduction of your total code."
- papsosouid 14y agoIt doesn't lead to a significant reduction though, it is hardly any reduction at all. Look at their code, the python could be replaced with C++ at an almost 1:1 ratio.