• Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    11 hours ago

    Ah yes, those precious precious CPU cycles. Why spend one hour writing a python program that runs for five minutes, if you could spend three days writing it in C++ but it would finish in five seconds. Way more efficient!

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        Welp, I’m not saying you should use Python for everything. But for a lot of applications, developer time is the bottleneck, not computing resources.

    • Ephera@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      So, I’ve noticed this tendency for Python devs to compare against C/C++. I’m still trying to figure out why they have this tendency, but yeah, other/better languages are available. 🙃

    • eldavi@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      exactly! i prefer python or ruby or even java MUCH more than assembly and maybe C

      • menemen@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        9 hours ago

        I mean, I’d say it depends on what you do. When I see grad students writing numeric simulations in python I do think that it would be more efficient to learn a language that is better suited for that. And I know I’ll be triggering many people now, but there is a reason why C and Fortran are still here.

        But if it is for something small, yeah of course, use whatever you like. I do most of my stuff in R and R is a lot of things, but not fast.

        • eldavi@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 hours ago

          But if it is for something small, yeah of course, use whatever you like.

          or if you have a deadline and using something else would make you miss that deadline.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      8 hours ago

      Because when it is to actually get paid work done, all the bloat adds up and that 3 days upfront could shave weeks/months of your yearly tasks. XKCD has a topic abut how much time you can spend on a problem before effort outweighs productivity gains. If the tasks are daily or hourly you can actually spend a lot of time automating for payback

      And note this is one instance of task, imagine a team of people all using your code to do the task, and you get a quicker ROI or you can multiply dev time by people

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 hours ago

        That also goes to show why to not waste 3 days to shave 2 seconds off a program that gets run once a week.

      • Diplomjodler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        You can write perfectly well structured and maintainable code in Python and still be more productive than in other languages.

      • _pi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        SDLC can be made to be inefficient to maximize billable hours, but that doesn’t mean the software is inherently badly architected. It could just have a lot of unnecessary boilerplate that you could optimize out, but it’s soooooo hard to get tech debt prioritized on the road map.

        Killing you own velocity can be done intelligently, it’s just that most teams aren’t killing their own velocity because they’re competent, they’re doing it because they’re incompetent.

        And note this is one instance of task, imagine a team of people all using your code to do the task, and you get a quicker ROI or you can multiply dev time by people

        In practice, is only quicker ROI if your maintenance plan is nonexistent.