upvote

points

by pjmlp17 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby ModernMech17 hours ago|
[-]
I think it's true that it's exaggerated, but that doesn't mean the tradeoff doesn't exist.
reply
upvoteby pjmlp16 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
A tradeoff that doesn't make sense to complain about, when the alternative is waiting for native libraries being compiled, in a mix of C, C++, Fortran and more recently Rust.

A pain point that is big enough that at least two programming languages, Julia and Mojo, were created to move beyond it.

Which would not even be an issue, if Lisp, Scheme and Prolog had not lost their aura among AI devs.

reply
upvoteby ModernMech15 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Julia and Mojo are attempts at solving the "two language problem", which not every Python user actually has -- they're fine doing work exclusively in Python, not even using any of the libraries you're talking about.

Mojo in particular recognized to compete with Python they'd have to be a superset, then they backed of that goal when they realized it would be too hard.

So at the end of the day, Python has a value proposition and it cannot be entirely subsumed by other languages, because those languages make tradeoffs that move away from Python's value.

reply
upvoteby pjmlp14 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Python's value is being a portable scripting language, a better Perl, unfortunately some try to do full blown applications with an interpreted language.
reply
upvoteby necovek1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Perhaps it's worse that some even succeed in building very complex systems that can handle a lot of load too (see eg. Instagram)? ;-)

Python has a known set of trade-offs, mostly related to loop performance. But if you understand the trade-offs and available mitigations, it should not stop you from building good software. You know, just like any other ecosystem.

reply