|
|
|
|
|
|
by baranul
48 days ago
|
|
|
> I suspect that the author would have gotten a lot further had he been using a GC language and not had to deal with all the low-level issues Agree, that many people are using languages out of context to what they are actually trying to do. In many cases, using a GC language would be far more productive for them. Though I do think we should distinguish between compiled and interpreted GC languages, as often there is a significant gap in performance, that can be wanted or appreciated. |
|
|
Sure, that is tautologically true.
However, I maintain that the original author would have gotten much further even with a pathologically slow Python implementation. In particular, munging all the low-level stuff like linking is going to have full-on libraries that you could pass off the task to. You can then come back and do it yourself later.
For me, reaching a point that helps reinforce my motivation is BY FAR the most relevant consideration for projects. Given the original article, it seems like I'm not alone.