I am a Python scripter in search of a language with better performance. I do a lot of signal processing in my job and I think I've pushed Python as far as it will go. Recently, I have written a few programs in D and have been impressed with (a) how easy the transition from Python has been, (2) the large boost in performance for my code.

Here's the question:

Should my second language be a new language like D? Or, would I be better off mastering something more mainstream such as C or C++?

The reason I ask is that D is similar enough to Python in terms of abstraction that I might be better off in the long run mastering something lower level such as C or C++, or higher level such as a good functional language like Lisp or Ocaml.

I've noticed D is still quite immature in some ways. It has no printed books (a sign of market share) as compared to the dozen os so books written about C/C++ in my specific scientific discipline alone.  Also,  the standard library is in flux (Phobos vs Tango) whereas more mature languages have settled down.

In short, I like D, but maybe I would be better of learning something else. So, some of you alpha-geeks on this list: would you learn D next in my position or something else?

David Finlayson wrote:
> I am a Python scripter in search of a language with better
> performance. I do a lot of signal processing in my job and I think
> I've pushed Python as far as it will go. Recently, I have written a
> few programs in D and have been impressed with (a) how easy the
> transition from Python has been, (2) the large boost in performance
> for my code.
> 
> Here's the question:
> 
> Should my second language be a new language like D? Or, would I be
> better off mastering something more mainstream such as C or C++?
> 
> The reason I ask is that D is similar enough to Python in terms of
> abstraction that I might be better off in the long run mastering
> something lower level such as C or C++, or higher level such as a
> good functional language like Lisp or Ocaml.
> 
> I've noticed D is still quite immature in some ways. It has no
> printed books (a sign of market share) as compared to the dozen os so
> books written about C/C++ in my specific scientific discipline alone.
> Also,  the standard library is in flux (Phobos vs Tango) whereas more
> mature languages have settled down.
> 
> In short, I like D, but maybe I would be better of learning something
> else. So, some of you alpha-geeks on this list: would you learn D
> next in my position or something else?
> 

Well, maybe I'm a little biased, but I think Python and D are a potent combination. You could do worse.

That said, you might do well by picking up a copy of K&R[1] and learning C.  It is good to learn the low-level details of the machine. Also, very nearly every library in existence speaks C; it is the closest thing to a lingua franca in the programming world. And a lot (but not all) of what you'd learn doing C would apply to D (not to mention C++).

[1] The C Programming Language, by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie

-- 
Kirk McDonald
http://kirkmcdonald.blogspot.com
Pyd: Connecting D and Python
http://pyd.dsource.org

Kirk McDonald wrote:
> David Finlayson wrote:
>> I am a Python scripter in search of a language with better
>> performance. I do a lot of signal processing in my job and I think
>> I've pushed Python as far as it will go. Recently, I have written a
>> few programs in D and have been impressed with (a) how easy the
>> transition from Python has been, (2) the large boost in performance
>> for my code.
>>
>> Here's the question:
>>
>> Should my second language be a new language like D? Or, would I be
>> better off mastering something more mainstream such as C or C++?
>>
>> The reason I ask is that D is similar enough to Python in terms of
>> abstraction that I might be better off in the long run mastering
>> something lower level such as C or C++, or higher level such as a
>> good functional language like Lisp or Ocaml.
>>
>> I've noticed D is still quite immature in some ways. It has no
>> printed books (a sign of market share) as compared to the dozen os so
>> books written about C/C++ in my specific scientific discipline alone.
>> Also,  the standard library is in flux (Phobos vs Tango) whereas more
>> mature languages have settled down.
>>
>> In short, I like D, but maybe I would be better of learning something
>> else. So, some of you alpha-geeks on this list: would you learn D
>> next in my position or something else?
>>
> 
> Well, maybe I'm a little biased, but I think Python and D are a potent combination. You could do worse.
> 
> That said, you might do well by picking up a copy of K&R[1] and learning C.  It is good to learn the low-level details of the machine. Also, very nearly every library in existence speaks C; it is the closest thing to a lingua franca in the programming world. And a lot (but not all) of what you'd learn doing C would apply to D (not to mention C++).
> 
> [1] The C Programming Language, by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie
> 

I'll second that.  I started out with various flavors of BASIC (first was BASIC/1a on old Tandy machines), then later learned C in school.  With a working knowledge of C in hand, I've found picking up nearly any other language rather straightforward -- even languages notably distant /from/ C.

-- Chris Nicholson-Sauls

Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>> David Finlayson wrote:
>>> I am a Python scripter in search of a language with better
>>> performance. I do a lot of signal processing in my job and I think
>>> I've pushed Python as far as it will go. Recently, I have written a
>>> few programs in D and have been impressed with (a) how easy the
>>> transition from Python has been, (2) the large boost in performance
>>> for my code.
>>>
>>> Here's the question:
>>>
>>> Should my second language be a new language like D? Or, would I be
>>> better off mastering something more mainstream such as C or C++?
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> Well, maybe I'm a little biased, but I think Python and D are a potent combination. You could do worse.
>>
>> That said, you might do well by picking up a copy of K&R[1] and learning C.  It is good to learn the low-level details of the machine. Also, very nearly every library in existence speaks C; it is the closest thing to a lingua franca in the programming world. And a lot (but not all) of what you'd learn doing C would apply to D (not to mention C++).
>>
>> [1] The C Programming Language, by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie
>>
> 
> I'll second that.  I started out with various flavors of BASIC (first was BASIC/1a on old Tandy machines), then later learned C in school.  With a working knowledge of C in hand, I've found picking up nearly any other language rather straightforward -- even languages notably distant /from/ C.

I'm a K&R devotee too.  Short, sweet, and to the point.  I went from self-taught BASIC to self-taught C via K&R without too much trouble. And that was as a know-nothing college freshman.

If you're going to continue to use Python then knowing C will probably be more valuable to you in the long run.  C is the lingua franca of all popular operating systems today.  Any C++ APIs presented by the OS are most likely wrappers around an underlying C API.  The Python API for writing extension modules in native code is a C API.  And as you already hinted you are much more likely to find working code that you can borrow in C than you are in D.

But *after* you learn C then D is probably a great 2nd step.  D is mostly a superset of C, so you more or less have to learn C as part of learning D anyway.  D can also call C libraries directly.  So anything you write or obtain that's written in C, can be used pretty easily from D.  You need to translate the C header file to D, but you don't generally need to write any new functions.

I think I can sum up my recommendations succinctly by saying

   "D comes after C"

:-)

--bb

Bill Baxter wrote:
> Chris Nicholson-Sauls wrote:
>> Kirk McDonald wrote:
>>> David Finlayson wrote:
>>>> I am a Python scripter in search of a language with better
>>>> performance. I do a lot of signal processing in my job and I think
>>>> I've pushed Python as far as it will go. Recently, I have written a
>>>> few programs in D and have been impressed with (a) how easy the
>>>> transition from Python has been, (2) the large boost in performance
>>>> for my code.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the question:
>>>>
>>>> Should my second language be a new language like D? Or, would I be
>>>> better off mastering something more mainstream such as C or C++?
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Well, maybe I'm a little biased, but I think Python and D are a potent combination. You could do worse.
>>>
>>> That said, you might do well by picking up a copy of K&R[1] and learning C.  It is good to learn the low-level details of the machine. Also, very nearly every library in existence speaks C; it is the closest thing to a lingua franca in the programming world. And a lot (but not all) of what you'd learn doing C would apply to D (not to mention C++).
>>>
>>> [1] The C Programming Language, by Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie
>>>
>>
>> I'll second that.  I started out with various flavors of BASIC (first was BASIC/1a on old Tandy machines), then later learned C in school.  With a working knowledge of C in hand, I've found picking up nearly any other language rather straightforward -- even languages notably distant /from/ C.
> 
> I'm a K&R devotee too.  Short, sweet, and to the point.  I went from self-taught BASIC to self-taught C via K&R without too much trouble. And that was as a know-nothing college freshman.
> 
> If you're going to continue to use Python then knowing C will probably be more valuable to you in the long run.  C is the lingua franca of all popular operating systems today.  Any C++ APIs presented by the OS are most likely wrappers around an underlying C API.  The Python API for writing extension modules in native code is a C API.  And as you already hinted you are much more likely to find working code that you can borrow in C than you are in D.
> 
> But *after* you learn C then D is probably a great 2nd step.  D is mostly a superset of C, so you more or less have to learn C as part of learning D anyway.  D can also call C libraries directly.  So anything you write or obtain that's written in C, can be used pretty easily from D.  You need to translate the C header file to D, but you don't generally need to write any new functions.
> 
> I think I can sum up my recommendations succinctly by saying
> 
>    "D comes after C"
> 


I throw my hat in with all of these guys. C is a great next step for you. One of the things I've always liked about C is that there are very few surprises behind the code you type and the compiled output. There are a few behaviors in the spec that are undefined and left up to the implementation, but for most of what you do things are consistent across platforms and compilers.

Since every language knows how to talk to it, a good grounding in C will often come in handy. You might need to revert to C to enhance performance (e.g., reimplementing a custom python module in C) or perhaps interface with legacy code (e.g., when using a more modern language like Java or D on a new project in a company that has an extensive C code base).

I also think that learning to work with manual memory management and how to avoid all of the associated pitfalls (buffer overruns, uninitialized variables, etc...) is a great education. It's good to have the big picture on why modern languages have so many safety nets built into the core.

"Mike Parker" <aldacron71@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f0h40u$2q1b$1@digitalmars.com...
>
> I also think that learning to work with manual memory management and how to avoid all of the associated pitfalls (buffer overruns, uninitialized variables, etc...) is a great education. It's good to have the big picture on why modern languages have so many safety nets built into the core.

Exactly.. if nothing else, learning C will give you an appreciation of the simplicity and expressiveness that things like garbage collection lend to D.

Interesting. I'm in the same position as David, shopping for a low-level language to add to a scripting language, though it's Ruby in this case. So I tried out my first D last night, rewrote a 100 line Ruby script into a 130 line D program, and got a 10x speedup. That's a good combination of expressiveness and speed.

Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:
> Exactly.. if nothing else, learning C will give you an appreciation of the simplicity and expressiveness that things like garbage collection lend to D.

OTOH what you say is true, and C is a good fit for Ruby, like Python. Also, if I did learn D next, that would make the languages I know Ruby, Prolog and D. Not a great job-market combination!

== Quote from Daniel Lucraft (dan@fluentradical.com)'s article
> OTOH what you say is true, and C is a good fit for Ruby, like Python. Also, if I did learn D next, that would make the languages I know Ruby, Prolog and D. Not a great job-market combination!

The rubyd project (http://code.google.com/p/rubyd/) may be helpful for people that
want to use D and Ruby together. But I don't really know anything about the
project (and I don't even really know anything about Ruby), so I could be very wrong.

(It's also possible the rubyd project was abandoned months ago because I can't tell how long it's been since the code has been updated.)

jcc7

jcc7 Wrote:
> The rubyd project (http://code.google.com/p/rubyd/) may be helpful for people that
> want to use D and Ruby together. But I don't really know anything about the
> project (and I don't even really know anything about Ruby), so I could be very wrong.

Thanks for the link, that would be very useful library. I might try contacting the author.

Thanks for the candid thoughts.

I periodically brush off my intro to C book and give a few chapters a whirl, but I have never mastered the language. Maybe it is about time.

David

Jarrett Billingsley Wrote:

> "Mike Parker" <aldacron71@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:f0h40u$2q1b$1@digitalmars.com...
> >
> > I also think that learning to work with manual memory management and how to avoid all of the associated pitfalls (buffer overruns, uninitialized variables, etc...) is a great education. It's good to have the big picture on why modern languages have so many safety nets built into the core.
> 
> Exactly.. if nothing else, learning C will give you an appreciation of the simplicity and expressiveness that things like garbage collection lend to D.
> 
>