this post was submitted on 24 May 2025
194 points (88.8% liked)
Asklemmy
49210 readers
813 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Python sucks.
Not only is it extremely inefficient, it is also a pain in the ass to work with if you have to use APIs that heavily rely on dynamic type wrapping and don't provide stubs. Static analysis via Pylance is not possible then and you're basically poking around in the dark, increasing the difficulty enourmously to get to know such an API. Even worse if there isn't even a halfway decent documentation.
Comparing Python to c++ seems disingenuous, Python is not a replacement for c++, it should be compared to bash, PHP or maybe R. Don't get mad that a hammer is not a good screwdriver.
I suppose you're referring to the article I've linked. As I see it: If an increasing amount of applications world are running with Python, then energy and time consumption are important aspects. Not only cost wise but especially since we're grilling our planet. Therefore, comparing with more efficient languages is indeed meaningful.