Related
My current primary programming language is python. There are lots of things I like about it, but I also like functional languages. Not enough to do an entire program in them, but definitely for certain functionality, that fits the functional mould well.
Of course .NET is amazing in this regard, having both ironpython and F#. But considering the ironpython support for the scientific python ecosystem is still dodgy last time I checked, .NET is not much of an option for me. I am a bit shocked at the apparent lack of tools to facilitate interop between cpython and say, Haskell. They are both mature languages with large communities, that seem like such a nice match to me.
Is there something about their architecture that makes them ill-compatible that im missing, or is this just something awesome that is still waiting to happen?
To clarify; there are some half-baked projects out there, but I am thinking of something that parallels the awesomeness of Weave, pycuda, or boost. Something that automates all the plumbing inherent in interop with just a few annotations.
Another approach is to use unix pipes, and just write a Haskell program, and also write a Python program, and have them communicate over text. Haskell and Python even share the same syntax for lists, so it's really easy to pipe data from one to the other.
Referring to:
Is there something about their architecture that makes them
ill-compatible that im missing, or is this just something awesome that
is still waiting to happen?
I think it is about the people doing these languages:
There are not much people who want to do Haskell and Python at the same time.
to make use of both languages (liek Haskell and Python) at the same time you either could go via the C-Interface or create a protocol both languages speak.
Both are fairly advanced, limiting the number of people who could do it. Sure there would be also tradeoffs which make it difficult to use the full power of both languages.
I am using Python and although I know some Haskell, I do not program it. I am a bit stuck in object-orientation, telling me that some day a problem will decide for me that it can better be solved in Haskell than python. That problem did not yet occur because my first thought is: I know how to do it in Python. I think other 'experts' face that problem, too.
You start thinking in a language. I think that Haskell has a totally different way of thinking with its functional style, no side-effects. To get into this thinking I need to forget or not use my Python knowledge. Switching between these two ways of thinking requires some strength.
Wrapping it up: because that two languages are not so close they stay apart. It is hard to do both and there are not many or easy ways to practice doing both.
I think that any answer to this question would be remiss without considering the inertia of object-oriented and imperative languages relative to functional ones. Consider the following situation, beginning with the fact that functional languages are not taught at nearly the frequency that object-oriented or imperative languages are at the secondary, university, or graduate level. As User mentions, there is significant momentum involved as a programmer concerning one's choice of language. For example, during the course of a typical CS degree at a four year University, one may learn a handful of languages and more than likely, not one of them is a functional language. This typical graduate will then proceed to work in industry, where, after programming for 40+ hours per week for one's job, it is very difficult to then take time to, not only learn an entirely new language, but to learn a language that operates completely differently from the one's one already knows. On top of all of this, there is the drawback that functional languages are not nearly as useful in industry as object-oriented or imperative one's are. One can see that given this current state, it is understandable that the interoperability between Python and Haskell is not what some programmers would like it to be.
If you were to use Haskell to Python bindings, what would you do in each language?
If you consider binding C and Python, for example, you use C when you need the speed boost, or when you need to push bits around, and you are using Python when want to be expressive and concise. It's common that you have a pair of languages, one for most of the logic, and one that you can drop down to for speed, at the cost of clarity. The more of a gap between the languages, the more you can gain from switching.
If we were to bind Haskell and Python, it is less clear what you'd get out of it. I wouldn't drop from Python into Haskell just for speed, since Haskell, while fast, isn't as fast as C. But if I was using Haskell, when would I use Python? Python isn't more expressive than Haskell, not like comparing C and Python.
I think that most of the time, it's easier to just import functools, and program functionally in Python, instead of having to convert objects into some Haskell representation, do some work, and then convert it back.
Though, if you really wanted it, Cython would make it easy to write functions that Haskell's FFI can use.
I'm working on a basic DBMS as a pet project and planning to prototype in Python.
I figure there's a reason there are only a few Python databases, and my gut agrees that my favorite language will be too slow to act as an honest performing database, but I'm looking forward to using it to learn what I need quickly.
Would someone please contradict me? Is Python as ill-suited right now for this sort of thing as I think?
EDIT 4/16-
I've posted another getting-started-on-this-project type question if anyone is interested.
(Non-Relational) DBMS Design Resource
It's doubtful that anything you create as a pet project is going to turn out to be popular. Presumably you are mostly doing this as a learning experience and for fun.
Given these facts, there's no reason to stop yourself so early just because you think there might be performance problems. Just do it and have fun with it. The idea of a pure Python database will at least be academically interesting to others.
You can always do some performance profiling to find the bottlenecks and use the usual approaches in speeding things up (CPython, Cython, ctypes, etc.)
Don't be so quick to dismiss Python's huge benefits that you get in return for the performance hit. Namely rapid development.
If performance isn't a huge issue there's no reason Python can't do what you need, it certainly has all of the tools to do so. Designing a database certainly isn't a trivial undertaking, of course, but assuming you have the know-how and Python-fu to put in everything you need (of course, being helped by all of us here at SO ;) ) then the basic building blocks are all there.
For reference, there's at least one DBMS written in pure Python that I know of: KirbyBase
I'm a hobbyist programmer (only in TI-Basic before now), and after much, much, much debating with myself, I've decided to learn Python. I don't have a ton of free time to teach myself a hundred languages and all programming I do will be for personal use or for distributing to people who need them, so I decided that I needed one good, strong language to be good at. My questions:
Is python powerful enough to handle most things that a typical programmer might do in his off-time? I have in mind things like complex stat generators based on user input for tabletop games, making small games, automate install processes, and build interactive websites, but probably a hundred things along those lines
Does python handle networking tasks fairly well?
Can python source be obfuscated, or is it going to be open-source by nature? The reason I ask this is because if I make something cool and distribute it, I don't want some idiot script kiddie to edit his own name in and say he wrote it
And how popular is python, compared to other languages. Ideally, my language would be good and useful with help found online without extreme difficulty, but not so common that every idiot with computer knows python. I like the idea of knowing a slightly obscure language.
Thanks a ton for any help you can provide.
Is python powerful enough to handle
most things?
Yes. Period. Study EveOnline game for more information. Look at pygame framework. Free free to use Google to find more.
Does python handle networking tasks
fairly well?
Yes. Look at the number of Python web frameworks plus the Twisted framework. Feel free to use Google to search for Python networking.
Can python source be obfuscated?
Not usefully. This isn't C.
And how popular is python, compared to
other languages?
Look at the TIOBE index.
I think that Python is very powerful to do a lot of things, but just like Java and C++, it often depends on good third-party libraries. I come from a Java background but use Python for a lot of things, and it's been a fun ride. I've done things like statistics, and automation, not sure about the UI though that often depends on the toolkit more than the language.
Python networking works well. I don't know if I'd use it to build a fast algorithmic trading system or a VOIP application, but for most intents and purposes, especially at higher levels of abstraction, it's fine and easy to use. You would need external libraries for things like SSH or FTP.
Python is quite popular and has very good online support, active community, and major corporations (likeGoogle) that use it. I found the official online tutorial and reference to be excellent.
I have to say that I disagree with the "every idiot with a computer" line. There's a difference between knowing a language and using it right, and that's true about every language, even natural ones :) Python does have a lot of functional elements that are not as trivial to use for people coming from a procedural background, so there's always room for growth.
The one problem with Python compared to languages like C and Java is that it is not statically typed. This makes it much faster to write code, but also makes it *much easier) to make mistakes that can be quite nasty to debug. For instance, the same variable can contain a String reference at some point, and a reference to a list of strings at some other point.
Absolutely.
What type of networking? It has socket, http, xml, smtp/pop, telnet, and much more built in.
Python obfuscation won't be nearly as good as a compiled language. Usually that isn't a problem.
It's the 9th most popular tag on stackoverflow, so there's plenty of help available.
Is python powerful enough to handle most things that a typical programmer might do in his off-time? I have in mind things like complex stat generators based on user input for tabletop games, making small games, automate install processes, and build interactive websites, but probably a hundred things along those lines
Definitely. Python is a good tool for all of those except automating install processes, where it might be the right tool but more likely the right tool will likely be decided by what specifically you are automating.
Does python handle networking tasks fairly well?
Yes. You will want to look into Twisted.
Can python source be obfuscated, or is it going to be open-source by nature? The reason I ask this is because if I make something cool and distribute it, I don't want some idiot script kiddie to edit his own name in and say he wrote it
"Open source" refers to the licensing of your code, not the viewability of its source code. Hiding Python source code isn't especially possible, and the results of decompiling Python bytecode will result in much more readable code than the equivalent tools in languages like C. Don't worry about this! You can't prevent people from stealing your car or your computer if they are willing to break the law, and you can't do the same for your code in any language.
And how popular is python, compared to other languages. Ideally, my language would be good and useful with help found online without extreme difficulty, but not so common that every idiot with computer knows python. I like the idea of knowing a slightly obscure language.
This is an unanswerable question. Google will give you lots of conflicting results with different metrics, most of them useful. You're also being a bit silly ;)
As far as learning materials go, I recommend How to Think Like a Computer Scientist, which is a good text that does not presume any existing programming knowledge. It is available for free online, or you could buy a print copy if you prefer. (Don't bother learning 3.x yet. There is not enough library support to do much useful stuff like you want to do, and when there is picking it up will be a breeze; it's not very different than 2.5/6/7.)
Probably yes. Maybe the stat crunching thing will be kinda slow, and maybe a game depending on what kind of game, but generally the performance is good enough, and you save a lot of time on the actual programming. If you REALLY need performance, you can make a module in C, but usually there is a library written to do what you want..
I haven't used it, but there's a framework called Twisted that seems to be pretty good.
No. Bytecode can be decompiled easily, and it only works on a specific version of Python, so your code isn't as portable.
Python is pretty popular, and the Python Package Index has a big list of third party libraries. It's not as widespread as, say, Java, but a lot of people use it and you can probably get answers for what you want.
Points 1 and 2: HELL YEAH.
Point 4: kind of. Python is good at some network stuff. It's not Java or C++. Just use zlib (zip library) and pickle (serialization) for everything, and look at xmlrpclib if you need IPC.
Point 3: No. However, you can write C modules (for the performance critical, and hard-to-copy) parts of your code, and that would make it non-trivial to reverse-engineer.
Python is up to the task (and better) for 1, 2 and 4.
The best solution for 3 from what you describe would probably be to make your programs really open-source with GPL or BSD like licence. This way people will edit your super-cool sources (but often experienced programmers, not just script kiddies) and build on then but leave your name in for posterity.
Out of curiosity, are there many compilers out there which target .pyc files?
After a bit of Googling, the only two I can find are:
unholy: why_'s Ruby-to-pyc compiler
Python: The PSF's Python to pyc compiler
So… Are there any more?
(as a side note, I got thinking about this because I want to write a Scheme-to-pyc compiler)
(as a second side note, I'm not under any illusion that a Scheme-to-pyc compiler would be useful, but it would give me an incredible excuse to learn some internals of both Scheme and Python)
"I want to write a Scheme-to-pyc compiler".
My brain hurts! Why would you want to do that? Python byte code is an intermediate language specifically designed to meet the needs of the Python language and designed to run on Python virtual machines that, again, have been tailored to the needs of Python. Some of the most important areas of Python development these days are moving Python to other "virtual machines", such as Jython (JVM), IronPython (.NET), PyPy and the Unladen Swallow project (moving CPython to an LLVM-based representation). Trying to squeeze the syntax and semantics of another, very different language (Scheme) into the intermediate representation of another high-level language seems to be attacking the problem (whatever the problem is) at the wrong level. So, in general, it doesn't seem like there would be many .pyc compilers out there and there's a good reason for that.
I wrote a compiler several years ago which accepted a lisp-like language called "Noodle" and produced Python bytecode. While it never became particularly useful, it was a tremendously good learning experience both for understanding Common Lisp better (I copied several of its features) and for understanding Python better.
I can think of two particular cases when it might be useful to target Python bytecode directly, instead of producing Python and passing it on to a Python compiler:
Full closures: in Python before 3.0 (before the nonlocal keyword), you can't modify the value of a closed-over variable without resorting to bytecode hackery. You can mutate values instead, so it's common practice to have a closure referencing a list, for example, and changing the first element in it from the inner scope. That can get real annoying. The restriction is part of the syntax, though, not the Python VM. My language had explicit variable declaration, so it successfully provided "normal" closures with modifiable closed-over values.
Getting at a traceback object without referencing any builtins. Real niche case, for sure, but I used it to break an early version of the "safelite" jail. See my posting about it.
So yeah, it's probably way more work than it's worth, but I enjoyed it, and you might too.
I suggest you focus on CPython.
http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pytut/CompiledPythonfiles.html
Rather than a Scheme to .pyc translator, I suggest you write a Scheme to Python translator, and then let CPython handle the conversion to .pyc. (There is precedent for doing it this way; the first C++ compiler was Cfront which translated C++ into C, and then let the system C compiler do the rest.)
From what I know of Scheme, it wouldn't be that difficult to translate Scheme to Python.
One warning: the Python virtual machine is probably not as fast for Scheme as Scheme itself. For example, Python doesn't automatically turn tail recursion into iteration; and Python has a relatively shallow stack, so you would actually need to turn tail recursion to iteration for your translator.
As a bonus, once Unladen Swallow speeds up Python, your Scheme-to-Python translator would benefit, and at that point might even become practical!
If this seems like a fun project to you, I say go for it. Not every project has to be immediately practical.
P.S. If you want a project that is somewhat more practical, you might want to write an AWK to Python translator. That way, people with legacy AWK scripts could easily make the leap forward to Python!
Just for your interest, I have written a toy compiler from a simple LISP to Python. Practically, this is a LISP to pyc compiler.
Have a look: sinC - The tiniest LISP compiler
Probably a bit late at the party but if you're still interested the clojure-py project (https://github.com/halgari/clojure-py) is now able to compile a significant subset of clojure to python bytecode -- but some help is always welcome.
Targeting bytecode is not that hard in itself, except for one thing: it is not stable across platforms (e.g. MAKE_FUNCTION pops 2 elements from the stack in Python 3 but only 1 in Python 2), and these differences are not clearly documented in a single spot (afaict) -- so you probably have some abstraction layer needed.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
Right now I'm developing mostly in C/C++, but I wrote some small utilities in Python to automatize some tasks and I really love it as language (especially the productivity).
Except for the performances (a problem that could be sometimes solved thanks to the ease of interfacing Python with C modules), do you think it is proper for production use in the development of stand-alone complex applications (think for example to a word processor or a graphic tool)?
What IDE would you suggest? The IDLE provided with Python is not enough even for small projects in my opinion.
We've used IronPython to build our flagship spreadsheet application (40kloc production code - and it's Python, which IMO means loc per feature is low) at Resolver Systems, so I'd definitely say it's ready for production use of complex apps.
There are two ways in which this might not be a useful answer to you :-)
We're using IronPython, not the more usual CPython. This gives us the huge advantage of being able to use .NET class libraries. I may be setting myself up for flaming here, but I would say that I've never really seen a CPython application that looked "professional" - so having access to the WinForms widget set was a huge win for us. IronPython also gives us the advantage of being able to easily drop into C# if we need a performance boost. (Though to be honest we have never needed to do that. All of our performance problems to date have been because we chose dumb algorithms rather than because the language was slow.) Using C# from IP is much easier than writing a C Extension for CPython.
We're an Extreme Programming shop, so we write tests before we write code. I would not write production code in a dynamic language without writing the tests first; the lack of a compile step needs to be covered by something, and as other people have pointed out, refactoring without it can be tough. (Greg Hewgill's answer suggests he's had the same problem. On the other hand, I don't think I would write - or especially refactor - production code in any language these days without writing the tests first - but YMMV.)
Re: the IDE - we've been pretty much fine with each person using their favourite text editor; if you prefer something a bit more heavyweight then WingIDE is pretty well-regarded.
You'll find mostly two answers to that – the religous one (Yes! Of course! It's the best language ever!) and the other religious one (you gotta be kidding me! Python? No... it's not mature enough). I will maybe skip the last religion (Python?! Use Ruby!). The truth, as always, is far from obvious.
Pros: it's easy, readable, batteries included, has lots of good libraries for pretty much everything. It's expressive and dynamic typing makes it more concise in many cases.
Cons: as a dynamic language, has way worse IDE support (proper syntax completion requires static typing, whether explicit in Java or inferred in SML), its object system is far from perfect (interfaces, anyone?) and it is easy to end up with messy code that has methods returning either int or boolean or object or some sort under unknown circumstances.
My take – I love Python for scripting, automation, tiny webapps and other simple well defined tasks. In my opinion it is by far the best dynamic language on the planet. That said, I would never use it any dynamically typed language to develop an application of substantial size.
Say – it would be fine to use it for Stack Overflow, which has three developers and I guess no more than 30k lines of code. For bigger things – first your development would be super fast, and then once team and codebase grow things are slowing down more than they would with Java or C#. You need to offset lack of compilation time checks by writing more unittests, refactorings get harder cause you never know what your refacoring broke until you run all tests or even the whole big app, etc.
Now – decide on how big your team is going to be and how big the app is supposed to be once it is done. If you have 5 or less people and the target size is roughly Stack Overflow, go ahead, write in Python. You will finish in no time and be happy with good codebase. But if you want to write second Google or Yahoo, you will be much better with C# or Java.
Side-note on C/C++ you have mentioned: if you are not writing performance critical software (say massive parallel raytracer that will run for three months rendering a film) or a very mission critical system (say Mars lander that will fly three years straight and has only one chance to land right or you lose $400mln) do not use it. For web apps, most desktop apps, most apps in general it is not a good choice. You will die debugging pointers and memory allocation in complex business logic.
In my opinion python is more than ready for developing complex applications. I see pythons strength more on the server side than writing graphical clients. But have a look at http://www.resolversystems.com/. They develop a whole spreadsheet in python using the .net ironpython port.
If you are familiar with eclipse have a look at pydev which provides auto-completion and debugging support for python with all the other eclipse goodies like svn support. The guy developing it has just been bought by aptana, so this will be solid choice for the future.
#Marcin
Cons: as a dynamic language, has way
worse IDE support (proper syntax
completion requires static typing,
whether explicit in Java or inferred
in SML),
You are right, that static analysis may not provide full syntax completion for dynamic languages, but I thing pydev gets the job done very well. Further more I have a different development style when programming python. I have always an ipython session open and with one F5 I do not only get the perfect completion from ipython, but object introspection and manipulation as well.
But if you want to write second Google
or Yahoo, you will be much better with
C# or Java.
Google just rewrote jaiku to work on top of App Engine, all in python. And as far as I know they use a lot of python inside google too.
I really like python, it's usually my language of choice these days for small (non-gui) stuff that I do on my own.
However, for some larger Python projects I've tackled, I'm finding that it's not quite the same as programming in say, C++. I was working on a language parser, and needed to represent an AST in Python. This is certainly within the scope of what Python can do, but I had a bit of trouble with some refactoring. I was changing the representation of my AST and changing methods and classes around a lot, and I found I missed the strong typing that would be available to me in a C++ solution. Python's duck typing was almost too flexible and I found myself adding a lot of assert code to try to check my types as the program ran. And then I couldn't really be sure that everything was properly typed unless I had 100% code coverage testing (which I didn't at the time).
Actually, that's another thing that I miss sometimes. It's possible to write syntactically correct code in Python that simply won't run. The compiler is incapable of telling you about it until it actually executes the code, so in infrequently-used code paths such as error handlers you can easily have unseen bugs lurking around. Even code that's as simple as printing an error message with a % format string can fail at runtime because of mismatched types.
I haven't used Python for any GUI stuff so I can't comment on that aspect.
Python is considered (among Python programmers :) to be a great language for rapid prototyping. There's not a lot of extraneous syntax getting in the way of your thought processes, so most of the work you do tends to go into the code. (There's far less idioms required to be involved in writing good Python code than in writing good C++.)
Given this, most Python (CPython) programmers ascribe to the "premature optimization is the root of all evil" philosophy. By writing high-level (and significantly slower) Python code, one can optimize the bottlenecks out using C/C++ bindings when your application is nearing completion. At this point it becomes more clear what your processor-intensive algorithms are through proper profiling. This way, you write most of the code in a very readable and maintainable manner while allowing for speedups down the road. You'll see several Python library modules written in C for this very reason.
Most graphics libraries in Python (i.e. wxPython) are just Python wrappers around C++ libraries anyway, so you're pretty much writing to a C++ backend.
To address your IDE question, SPE (Stani's Python Editor) is a good IDE that I've used and Eclipse with PyDev gets the job done as well. Both are OSS, so they're free to try!
[Edit] #Marcin: Have you had experience writing > 30k LOC in Python? It's also funny that you should mention Google's scalability concerns, since they're Python's biggest supporters! Also a small organization called NASA also uses Python frequently ;) see "One coder and 17,000 Lines of Code Later".
Nothing to add to the other answers, besides that if you choose python you must use something like pylint which nobody mentioned so far.
One way to judge what python is used for is to look at what products use python at the moment. This wikipedia page has a long list including various web frameworks, content management systems, version control systems, desktop apps and IDEs.
As it says here - "Some of the largest projects that use Python are the Zope application server, YouTube, and the original BitTorrent client. Large organizations that make use of Python include Google, Yahoo!, CERN and NASA. ITA uses Python for some of its components."
So in short, yes, it is "proper for production use in the development of stand-alone complex applications". So are many other languages, with various pros and cons. Which is the best language for your particular use case is too subjective to answer, so I won't try, but often the answer will be "the one your developers know best".
Refactoring is inevitable on larger codebases and the lack of static typing makes this much harder in python than in statically typed languages.
And as far as I know they use a lot of python inside google too.
Well i'd hope so, the maker of python still works at google if i'm not mistaken?
As for the use of Python, i think it's a great language for stand-alone apps. It's heavily used in a lot of Linux programs, and there are a few nice widget sets out there to aid in the development of GUI's.
Python is a delight to use. I use it routinely and also write a lot of code for work in C#. There are two drawbacks to writing UI code in Python. one is that there is not a single ui framework that is accepted by the majority of the community. when you write in c# the .NET runtime and class libraries are all meant to work together. With Python every UI library has at's own semantics which are often at odds with the pythonic mindset in which you are trying to write your program. I am not blaming the library writers. I've tried several libraries (wxwidgets, PythonWin[Wrapper around MFC], Tkinter), When doing so I often felt that I was writing code in a language other than Python (despite the fact that it was python) because the libraries aren't exactly pythonic they are a port from another language be it c, c++, tk.
So for me I will write UI code in .NET (for me C#) because of the IDE & the consistency of the libraries. But when I can I will write business logic in python because it is more clear and more fun.
I know I'm probably stating the obvious, but don't forget that the quality of the development team and their familiarity with the technology will have a major impact on your ability to deliver.
If you have a strong team, then it's probably not an issue if they're familiar. But if you have people who are more 9 to 5'rs who aren't familiar with the technology, they will need more support and you'd need to make a call if the productivity gains are worth whatever the cost of that support is.
I had only one python experience, my trash-cli project.
I know that probably some or all problems depends of my inexperience with python.
I found frustrating these things:
the difficult of finding a good IDE for free
the limited support to automatic refactoring
Moreover:
the need of introduce two level of grouping packages and modules confuses me.
it seems to me that there is not a widely adopted code naming convention
it seems to me that there are some standard library APIs docs that are incomplete
the fact that some standard libraries are not fully object oriented annoys me
Although some python coders tell me that they does not have these problems, or they say these are not problems.
Try Django or Pylons, write a simple app with both of them and then decide which one suits you best. There are others (like Turbogears or Werkzeug) but those are the most used.