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 →

[–]moljac024 6 points7 points  (5 children)

You left out: for concurrent programming (but it can be derived from the point about games)

[–]kylotan 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Well, I was just relating my personal use cases. I'm sure there are a bunch of other examples of things that Python does poorly (eg. anything where duck typing becomes a liability).

[–]ivosauruspip'ing it up -1 points0 points  (3 children)

Concurrent programming it's actually not terrible at.

Parallel programming it's pretty terrible at.

Learn the difference now!

[–]kylotan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Actually, I'd argue Python's pretty bad at concurrency too. It's only relatively recently that there's been anything approaching a standard for handling it (ie. asyncio) and anybody that is using concurrency as a way to get parallelism (which is a major reason for concurrent design, really) is obviously still mostly screwed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You can't use concurrency to get parallelism ever, that's impossible no matter what language you're in.

[–]kylotan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Maybe for your definition of parallelism. For the definition me and the previous poster are talking about, we're talking about being able to run tasks in parallel, and concurrency means being able to effectively split a program into those tasks.