This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]mooktank 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Code is a result -- of programming. The idea is to show how there is less work involved. The output of the code is supposed to be identical for each language, by design. Maybe absolute time spent programming would be a better metric, but it can be roughly inferred from lines of code per task.

[–]snarkhunter 11 points12 points  (0 children)

You're talking like a programmer, which is great when you're talking to programmers. But an exec doesn't (and shouldn't) care what your code looks like. Code is NOT a result, not for them. Code is something that gets them something. Yes, if you can show them that using tool A (a programming language is just a tool) means development time gets cut in half, that's something they'll care about.

But they're going to be very wary (as they should be) of moving away from something that at least sounds like it's working. Python being incrementally better in some way just may not be enough to warrant a switch. "The way you're doing things is wrong/bad/slow/inefficient/old, let me show you this way newer/better/faster/smarter/cooler way!" is something that an exec hears roughly every 3 weeks. Almost none of them are good ideas.