"Real" code vs "Fake" code
-
There was one moment when programming Python that I had wished I had a "real" programming language. It was the moment I discovered the GIL, and the repercussions to threaded programming. It was such a jarring limitation in my mind that a "real" language wouldn't have. However, this is a different definition of "real" in this case. As in "toy" vs "tool". I do reach for Python for quite a few tasks, but not for any application that needs serious threading. Yes, there is the multiprocessing library, but if I need work arounds or need to write a module I might as well start with C++.
@fcarney said in "Real" code vs "Fake" code:
this is a different definition of "real" in this case. As in "toy" vs "tool". I do reach for Python for quite a few tasks, but not for any application that needs serious threading.
This makes me think of LabVIEW, which is the primary language at my workplace. People often look down on it and call it a "toy" language simply because coding involves drawing colourful diagrams, and because it has "lab" in its name. However, it trumps all other languages in its ease of creating multi-threaded code.
