I think people see python as accessible but not very fast. Then they see Go which is fairly accessible but with significantly better performance than python. Why not use Go instead?
What people don’t realize when they make that comparison is that the python version of many popular libraries is a light wrapper over a bunch of C++ (or some other really fast language).
At least that’s what I figure is going on. I see a lot of people wanting to port stuff to Go.
Having said that, Go is awesome for bespoke solutions where you don’t have some python bindings on a C library to do what you need. It’s certainly not a slow language, and its tooling is exceptionally nice to get started with.
But what I want to know is when are they going to port PyQT to Go?
> I think people see python as accessible but not very fast. Then they see Go which is fairly accessible but with significantly better performance than python. Why not use Go instead?
Most (all?) 3d graphics programs use python as an extension language so they'd have to re-architecture their whole system to use Go programs in place of python. If it's even possible to dynamically load Go programs without having to resort to an Inkscape level of tomfoolery where the extension is called as a separate program and all the data is passed as shell arguments.
...not saying anything is wrong with Inkscape's way of doing things but I sure wish it had a built-in python api.
What people don’t realize when they make that comparison is that the python version of many popular libraries is a light wrapper over a bunch of C++ (or some other really fast language).
At least that’s what I figure is going on. I see a lot of people wanting to port stuff to Go.
Having said that, Go is awesome for bespoke solutions where you don’t have some python bindings on a C library to do what you need. It’s certainly not a slow language, and its tooling is exceptionally nice to get started with.
But what I want to know is when are they going to port PyQT to Go?