Reasons to choose Python over C++?

[nilamo]

You know what,i am quiting python.on windows python uses the batch script to open an application.

Python doesn't use batch scripts, it uses python.

I am moving on to vb.net.v

VB.net is fine for learning how to program.  Once you use it for a little bit, hopefully you'll see how awful it is.

[volcano63]

You know what,i am quiting python.on windows python uses the batch script to open an application.

Python doesn't use batch scripts, it uses python.

I think the guy confuses shell-level script with scripting language ( which is sort of unfortunate name)

[Larz60+]

But is is a script, what else are you going to call it?

[volcano63]

But is is a script, what else are you going to call it?

Interpreted language sounds like a better name. One of the best helpers on Linux shell programming I've seen states

A shell script is a quick-and-dirty method of prototyping a complex application. Getting even a limited subset of the functionality to work in a script is often a useful first stage in project development. In this way, the structure of the application can be tested and tinkered with, and the major pitfalls found before proceeding to the final coding in C, C++, Java, Perl, or Python.

Several years ago someone asked my help to port a small script from bash to Python. They guy was amazed by the performance improvement - Python program execution was 20 times faster

[metulburr]

I am moving on to vb.net

[RandoomDude]

You know what,i am quiting python.on windows python uses the batch script to open an application.

Python doesn't use batch scripts, it uses python.

I think the guy confuses shell-level script with scripting language ( which is sort of unfortunate name)

Doesnt python uses "cmd.start x.exe" to run programs on windows?

[Ofnuts]

Doesnt python uses "cmd.start x.exe" to run programs on windows?

Not mandatorily. AFAIK(*) you can run python program that don't show a command prompt window when they run by using pythonw instead of python and setting up the proper shortcut. 

(*) Linux user, where this problem doesn't exist, since executables have no "windows mode" flag.

[Ofnuts]

But is is a script, what else are you going to call it?

Interpreted language sounds like a better name. One of the best helpers on Linux shell programming I've seen states

A shell script is a quick-and-dirty method of prototyping a complex application. Getting even a limited subset of the functionality to work in a script is often a useful first stage in project development. In this way, the structure of the application can be tested and tinkered with, and the major pitfalls found before proceeding to the final coding in C, C++, Java, Perl, or Python.

Several years ago someone asked my help to port a small script from bash to Python. They guy was amazed by the performance improvement - Python program execution was 20 times faster

Depends a lot on the script. A true script does little by itself, it mostly calls existing utilities which have been usually written by people who know their stuff and will be much faster than equivalent Python code.

IMHO the quote above is wrong, you don't rewrite the code later, if I have a script working using rsync, I'm not going to reinvent that wheel, achieving sufficient trust in the new code would require years of testing.

[caxis]

When I originally wrote Scala, I did not really use FP. I wouldn't count that against it at all. (I like Scala, though I still write Python by default.)

Actually, FP is the fun part - at least in the learning process. Java components suck  

You know, Java now has FP and most languages now support FP in some form or other. 

If done right, FP can be more natural, compact and less bug-prone to modifications than the imperative style.

[volcano63]

Depends a lot on the script. A true script does little by itself, it mostly calls existing utilities which have been usually written by people who know their stuff and will be much faster than equivalent Python code.

While e.g., grep on itself will most probably be much faster than equivalent implemented in Python, each of those utilities must be loaded into memory, in many cases - more than one - when you pipe output of one into another. Multiple pipe buffer management is - intuitively - resource-consuming too.

And - speaking of memory - python 2.7.6 interpreter "weighed" just 20K, echo of Ubuntu - ab. 4 years ago, not sure about version - 50K.

Nevertheless, my evaluation is that the worst performance-affecting perp was output redirection. Appending to output file on each step meant re-opening and seeking its end on every loop iteration - in Python implementation, the output file was opened once.

---

You know, Java now has FP and most languages now support FP in some form or other. 

If done right, FP can be more natural, compact and less bug-prone to modifications than the imperative style.

1. Who wants to learn Java   (just kidding, but seriously - I don't)
   
2. Python supports quite a few FP element constructs - like map, filter, lambda, comprehensions, generators, reduce
   
3. Pure FP is not always the best tool for the task - and the creator of Scala, Martin Odersky,
   also the author of this excellent course, is smart and humble enough to state just that
   

Actually, previous knowledge of Python helped me in the mentioned-above Scala course...