What's better about Ruby than Python?

[William Trenker]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:11:20 -0600
Andrew Dalke <adalke@mindspr ing.com> wrote regarding Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?:
[color=blue]
> java group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 1,680
> perl group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 1,550
> tcl group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 470[/color]
[etc.]

c++ group:comp.lang .python from 1 Jan 2003 to today. 2,630

(for what it's worth)
Bill

[Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

The second surest sign that a post is a troll is if the author includes:

|> This is not a troll.

The first surest sign that a post is a troll is if the author is:

|"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com>

[Erik Max Francis]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
[color=blue]
> Why do you assume that I'm asking these questions in order to
> understand how
> to program in either? I want to know what people's *perceptions* are.
> Subscribe to marketing-python if you want to puzzle me out more.[/color]

Why do you need to understand _other_ peoples' perceptions, general
marketing trends, and Python marketshare in order to learn it? You've
already evidently (from your post here and in other groups recently)
decided that you're going to go with Python -- at least that's what you
claim, I'm not entirely convinced -- so why aren't you learning the
language instead of all these other irrelevant things?

If you've truly decided that you're going to use Python, why aren't you
learning the _language_ now -- something you've been putting off for
years -- instead of hunting down all these red herrings?

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ Principles have no real force except when one is well fed.
\__/ Mark Twain

[Andrew Dalke]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

William Trenker:[color=blue]
> c++ group:comp.lang .python from 1 Jan 2003 to today. 2,630
>
> (for what it's worth)[/color]

Relevant for the OP's thoughts.

I also tried C#, but then wondered if google would have problems
with non-text characters, and if not, if the search for C++ would
be biased by

int c = 0;
...
c++;

I also excluded 'basic' since it's too often used in other contexts.
And I totally left out lisp and scheme.

Now to confuse searches for the future: snobol, jovial, ada,
rebol, smalltalk, dylan, occam, objective c, apl, J, K, and
cobol. :)

Andrew
dalke@dalkescie ntific.com

[Harry George]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Alexander Schmolck <a.schmolck@gmx .net> writes:
[color=blue]
> Alex Martelli <aleaxit@yahoo. com> writes:
>[color=green]
> > (I do hope that Python never gets such a powerful macro system, no matter
> > the allure of "letting people define their own domain-specific little
> > languages embedded in the language itself" -- it would, IMHO, impair
> > Python's wonderful usefulness for application programming, by presenting an
> > "attractive nuisance" to the would-be tinkerer who lurks in every
> > programmer's heart...).[/color]
>
> I don't think a powerful but potentially dangerous feature poses much of a
> problem as long as there is little danger of inadvertently using it and little
> incentive to inappropriately use it (e.g. you could do all sorts of stupid
> things in python, like redefining __builtins__.le n, but generally there isn't
> much of an incentive to do so, so many of the reasons why e.g. Java
> programmers might think python an unsuitable language for larger projects
> don't really apply in practice. My feeling is this *not* true to the same
> extent for ruby, where similar things are both encouraged and, if I don't
> misremember, can happen inadvertently).
>
> Would you still have a problem with macros in python if utilizing them
> required some obvious and explicit mechanism (say a 'use_custom_syn tax'
> statement right at the beginning of a module that wants to use macros), so
> that their use could easily be controlled by e.g. project managers?
>
> 'as[/color]

Yes, it is a problem under any circumstances.

"The first step in writing a macro is to recognize that every time you
write one, you are defining a new language". P. Norvig, "Paradigms of
Artificial Intelligence Programming", c 1992, pg 66.

In the Lisp world, you use the hundreds of macros in CL becuase they
*are* the language. But home-grown (or vendor supplied) macros are
basically a lockin mechanism. New syntax, new behavior to learn, and
very little improvement in readability or efficiency of expresison
(the commmon rationales for macros).

The python language is just fine as is. If you really, really need
something like a macro, consider a template body which is filled in
and exec'd or eval'd at run time.

--
harry.g.george@ boeing.com
6-6M31 Knowledge Management
Phone: (425) 342-5601

[John Wilson]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Alex Martelli wrote:
[color=blue]
> Me, I think immutable strings are
> an excellent idea (and I'm not surprised that Java, independently
> I think, reinvented that idea which was already in Python),[/color]

Gosling claims that Java contains no new ideas. I have heard him say that
every feature of Java is in at least two other programming languages. Java
takes many things from CLU (including immutable strings). CLU looks to be an
influence on Python too.

John Wilson
The Wilson Partnership

http://www.wilson.co.uk

[Doug Tolton]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 10:52:09 -0700, "Brandon J. Van Every"
<vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Let me make myself as clear as I can. I am not the slightest bit interested
>in yours or anyone else's philosophy of whether I should have asked the
>question, or what manner I should have asked it. I asked a very simple
>question, and in some cases was rewarded with very simple, helpful answers.
>Whereas this meta-debate is a complete waste of time.[/color]

Clearly you are interested in people's philosophical take on why you
should've posted to the Ruby boards, because you take the time to
respond to each and every criticism.

It's interesting to note that you could've pre-empted the question by
saying either "I've also posted this to the Ruby group, but I wanted
your take" or "The Ruby group is a bunch of dunder heads and I only
like Python programmers" etc. However your ranting and whining about
people not answering the question to your satisfaction is amusing.

Beggars can't be choosers my friend. You posted an antagonistic
question to the Python board, expect to get antagonistic responses.

Clearly people don't care if they are answering your question in a way
that is suitable and appealing to you.


Doug Tolton
(format t "~a@~a~a.~a " "dtolton" "ya" "hoo" "com")

[John Roth]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?


"Andrew Dalke" <adalke@mindspr ing.com> wrote in message
news:bhq501$a98 $1@slb6.atl.min dspring.net...
[color=blue]
> How many Ruby programmers (per capita) do you know talking about
> Python? Perhaps Python "has the potential to ...display Ruby"[/color]

You might try getting onto some other newsgroups and mailing
lists that deal with more general (not language specific) issues and
find out exactly what people are saying. On the XP mailing lists
my general impression is that the Ruby programmers outnumber
the Python programmers, and a fair number of them came from
a Python background.
[color=blue]
> How many Python-aware programmers do you know who also talk
> about Java? Also talk about C#? About C++? About BASIC?[/color]

Lots. Most of the people on the XP lists use multiple languages,
and are quite vocal about it in the appropriate circumstances.

John Roth

[John J. Lee]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> writes:
[color=blue]
> "John J. Lee" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > Much less than a few hours? You're obviously much faster on the
> > uptake than me...[/color]
>
> To read and usefully absorb the tutorial in only an hour? That seems
> quite feasible for an experienced programmer.[/color]
[...]

Like I said. :-) Took me an afternoon.

Mind you, I am the type who, when faced with a new language, tends to
read everything slowly, chew the cud, *then* start writing. I read
the whole of Stroustrup and a couple of other books before writing a
line of C++ -- not an approach I recommend to others, but if I had to
do it again (heaven forfend), I'd do the same.


John

[Roy Smith]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Alex Martelli <aleaxit@yahoo. com> wrote:[color=blue]
> I do hope that Python never gets such a powerful macro system[/color]

I'm with Alex on this. Macros suck. What you usually end up with is
essentially two different languages, with different syntaxes, and which
don't interract very well. If nothing else, this really screws up emacs
auto-indenting :-(

One of the few things I like about C++ is that between const, templates,
and inline, the need for the macro preprocessor has been almost
eliminated. Still, you see a lot of code which goes out of its way to
do fancy things with macros, almost always with bad effect.

I don't even want to talk about the various systems which make use of
things like m4.

Why do you need macros? There's a few things people do with them:

1) Define constants. In Python, you just define symbols in your module,
and get over the fact that there really is no such thing as a constant
in Python.

2) Define efficient pseudo-functions. In Python, you just define a
function (or method) and get over the fact that it's not as efficient as
a macro. If I cared about microseconds, I wouldn't be writing in Python.

3) File inclusion. In Python, you don't include files, you import
modules.

4) Conditional compilation. In Python, you can conditionally define
anything you want at import time.

5) Inventing your own language constructs. In Python, you just don't do
this.

[John J. Lee]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Roberto Amorim" <wolfoxbr@hotma il.com> writes:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > 6. The way Ruby handles parameterless functions as if they were
> > properties.[/color]
>
> That's the thing I like most about Ruby. But I couldn't get past its[/color]
[...]

Appeals to me too, but, when it comes right down to it, the only
reason I'm using Python and not Perl is that it has a really
significant reduction in baggage. There just is no such difference
between Python and Ruby, according to everything I've heard people put
forward here as 'significant'. Python has more users. Nothing more
to be said, as far as I'm concerned.

I really wish I could say more for Ruby, as I'd very much like to
sound less like a closed-minded programming language-monoglot.

In my defence, like lots of people here I'm eager to learn Haskell and
O'Caml, not to mention a bunch of others -- if only Python didn't do
almost everything so well, there'd be more motivation...


John

[Aahz]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

In article <mailman.106123 3235.4220.pytho n-list@python.org >,
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <mertz@gnosis.c x> wrote:[color=blue]
>
>The second surest sign that a post is a troll is if the author includes:
>
>|> This is not a troll.
>
>The first surest sign that a post is a troll is if the author is:
>
>|"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com>[/color]

Oh, come on, Brandon is *much* less of a troll than T*m*t*y R*e. Unlike
the R**bot, we do some interesting topics out of Brandon, they're just
written with such antagonism that I'd be hard-pressed to top them.
--
Aahz (aahz@pythoncra ft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/

This is Python. We don't care much about theory, except where it intersects
with useful practice. --Aahz

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Tom wrote:[color=blue]
> "Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> wrote in message
> news:<bhpbc6$1p lpe$1@ID-203719.news.uni-berlin.de>...
>[color=green]
>> This is not a troll.[/color]
>
> "I am not a crook." R.Nixon[/color]

You certainly are a waste of my time, Tom. Welcome to my killfile. I'd
like to think that if I'm a waste of your time, it's for different reasons
and not ones of my own designing.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[Brandon J. Van Every]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Doug Tolton wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Clearly you are interested in people's philosophical take on why you
> should've posted to the Ruby boards, because you take the time to
> respond to each and every criticism.[/color]

I actually can't remember that I've deliberately done that. I expect I
probably haven't. At any rate, I do always take the time to let people know
that I'm putting them in my killfile. Such as yourself. You haven't said
anything awful, but you also went out of your way to make an otherwise
content-free post at my expense. Of what use is that to me? Eventually,
I'll whittle this group down to people who can take a simple, rational
question at face value, provide the needed info, and be done with it.

--
Cheers, www.3DProgrammer.com
Brandon Van Every Seattle, WA

20% of the world is real.
80% is gobbledygook we make up inside our own heads.

[Michele Simionato]

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"John Roth" <newsgroups@jhr othjr.com> wrote in message
news:<vk1c89jvd jepa4@news.supe rnews.com>...[color=blue]
> 3. Not having to write "self" in the method definition. This falls out of
> item 2: since every function/method has an instance, there's no need to
> declare it. I've thought of writing a PEP for this one.[/color]

Out of curiosity: how does Ruby manages inner classes like this?

class MyClass(object) :
def __init__(self,x ):
class InnerClass(obje ct):
def __init__(inners elf,a):
innerself.a=a
self.b=2*a
self.x=InnerCla ss(x)

c=MyClass(1)

print c.x.a # =>1
print c.b # =>2

an-ex-enemy-of-self-now-converted-ly-your's

Michele