[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: what is the best language for go: Re: [computer-go]Scoreestimating
Someone said this:
>>I'm not sure why it wouldn't be OK for bigger programs (ie. a Go
program)
>>as long as you're prepared to live with dynamic typing and code up
plenty
>>of Unit tests.
Whoever wrote this doesn't quite get it. Ruby and Python are better
I said it and I think I get it just fine thankyou :-)
for for BIG projects and was designed for this. Much better than
lower level languages than Java or C++ etc.
Java and C++ have been proven on countless huge projects, I don't think you
can say the same about Ruby or Python. Static typing comes into its own
when you hava a very big codebase (multi million line) with many (say 20+)
programmers working on it. In that situation it is often communication
between programmers that becomes a bottleneck, and static typing definitely
helps solve that problem in a way that dynamic typing can not.
The unit tests is not more necessary in ruby/python than these other
languages, it's LESS needed, but it should be done. You will always
I disagree. With dynamic typing the compiler catches fewer errors at
compile time, therefore you need more unit tests to catch those things.
get better results in any language by testing as you go and making
yourself go slow to be thorough.
Ruby is strict about types which is the more important thing. It's
not STATICALLY typed but it is strictly typed. You cannot add an
integer and a string, for instance, like you can in perl.
Ah, but you can write the source code to do it and you must rely on testing
to detect it.
For example the following Ruby program runs just fine until you enter "b" at
which time you get a *runtime* error:
a = gets.chomp
if a == "b"
a += 100
end
Unless python has changed, it doesn't hide data very well. Ruby is
way ahead unless python has fixed this, but Ruby always had it right.
- Don
cheers,
Peter
I think this computer language discussion is probably stretching the
patience of people whose main interest here is computer Go so I'll try
to
make this my last post on the topic :-)
>>Regarding Mark's question about large scale development: I'm not sure
how
>>Ruby would fare there. It has pretty decent OO features (better than
>>Python IMHO) which should help. My biggest Ruby program to date is
only
>>about 500 lines and it is certainly fine for anything of that size.
>
>I really go back to read the Ruby OO features, I did not found
anything
>that don't exist in python. Maybe you can give me good pointers on
web.
The things I didn't like about Python's OO were:
- lack of private and protected instance variables
- having to use an explicit 'self' parameter in all methods
Note that I'm not saying Python is a bad language, just that I
personally
didn't like it much. I'm sure that lots of people do wonderful things
with
Python. I'm equally sure that a sizeable bunch of people will prefer
Ruby.
cheers,
Peter
>
>>I'm not sure why it wouldn't be OK for bigger programs (ie. a Go
program)
>>as long as you're prepared to live with dynamic typing and code up
plenty
>>of Unit tests. I'd still see it as potentially much more productive
than
>>C++ or Java. I agree that speed would be an issue - if you do a
serious
>>Go program in it I'm guessing you'd want to re-implement the critical
>>parts in C once they've stablised.
>
>I'm sure that Python can manage such programs.
>For that there is a similar paquages as in java,
>but the import system is even more powerful than java one.
>
>Personnaly I know Python only since six month
>and I already made a full working application (even if not finish)
>which has 888 lignes wich is perfectly extensible and stable.
>It includes: configuration, special ftp client, language source
detection
>C code processing, batch compilation (with system ("gcc ") calls)
>
>Biggest aplications full works.
>mailman (mail list manager) 33 000 lignes of code.
>Zope (web server and web development environemnt) 403 000 lignes of
code.
>
>And the point is to realize the same functionnality,
>the code is *really* shorter than java or C++.
>For exemple, in my project, with the help of introspection,
>I parsed a file, transform it into a full working Python object,
>add one simple unittest, all in one file of 79 lines.
>As far as I remember how I worked in java, I would expect
>that the same job in java would require at least three
>classes (one file for each) 80 lines each.
>That's why I rely believe that Python is three times more productive
>than java (even including the learning stage)
>
>So I don't think that big project in Python is an issue
>The integration with C is easy (but not tested personnally)
>
>So I think it meets better the requirements of go application
>than C or java. Maybe Lisp is even better, but I know very
>little about lisp, except that it is harder to learn.
>
>Xavier
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_________________________________________________________________
There’s never been a better time to get Xtra JetStream @
http://xtra.co.nz/jetstream
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_________________________________________________________________
Check out news, entertainment and more @ http://xtra.co.nz/broadband
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/