JasonB (no@spam.com) on 3/3/08 wrote:
---------------------------
>
>OK, explain the difference, then. How do you average three lines of C++ code per
>line of Python code when their syntax is practically 1:1?

It's not just syntax, it's semantics. Compare the lame std::string type with Python's str and unicode types, for example. Compare the garbage collector with the burden of managing memory by hand. Compare the standard library. Compare the fact that everything is an object (including functions, methods...) with C++'s typing mess. etc.

Unless you only program Mandelbrot-calculation loops it is quite clear how Python is more concise than C++.

For a start, C++'s crippled standard library should be a big warning against using that language for general-purpose tasks, unless you are masochistic.

>I look at examples like http://www.dmh2000.com/cjpr/cmpframe.html

Sorry that's a stupid example. You don't write red-black trees in pure Python, it is not "idiomatic" by any meaning of the word. And the example itself is a straight translation from a textbook algorithm, no wonder line counts end up quite similar.

>Also, one of the things I like most about C++
>is that doing nice stuff is concise;

IMO only a Java or Pascal programmer can find C++ concise. There is no conciseness in the way you declare and use function types, method pointer types, etc., in C++.

>Perhaps some concrete examples would be nice to highlight what I've overlooked.

You can find some concrete examples here:
http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/

Since those examples are very short and calculatory programs, they don't really highlight what the high-level semantics of Python or Ruby can bring in terms of conciseness.

>>C++ is good for some applications, python is good for some applications.
>
>As I said right at the beginning. A classic Pentium is fine for plenty of applications as well.

Your classic Pentium does not have abstraction, maintainability and robustness advantages over a Core 2 Duo, while Python has over C++.