• Pup Biru@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    2 days ago

    further to that, “demonstrably worse for the planet” i’d like to debate: considering a huge amount of climate science is done with python-based tools because they’re far easier for researchers to pick up and run with - ie just get shit done rather than write good/clean code - i’d argue the benefit of python to the planet is in the outputs it enables for significantly reduced (or in many cases, perhaps outright enabled) input costs

    • xep@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      If you need to optimize for performance, a common approach in Python is to extend it in C/C++. It’s quite easy to do. Many high performance modules in Python are written in C/C++.

      It’s also easy to embed Python in a C/C++ program, should you feel the need to add some scripting support to it. A very nice feature of Python, in my opinion.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        absolutely! similar is true of node in v8 (though python imo is far more mature in this regard) and probably most other languages

        exactly why things like numpy are so popular: yeah python is slow, but python is just the orchestrator

    • bryndos@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Compare it to the likely alternative for the task/person, probably R or even MS excel in many cases i’d guess. The alternatives should ideally be based on empirical observation of the population. The marginal saving of choosing a higher efficiency than python might look a lot lower.