What's better about Ruby than Python?

**Raymond Hettinger** · Jul 18 '05, 01:39 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> wrote in message
news:bhpbc6$1pl pe$1@ID-203719.news.uni-berlin.de...[color=blue]
> What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something. What is
> it?[/color]

Code blocks, automatic properties, continuations,
and excellent Japanese documentation ;-)

Raymond Hettinge

**Graham Fawcett** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
[color=blue]
>What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something.
>[/color]
Of course there is.
[color=blue]
>What is
>it?
>
>[/color]

You're never going to get an answer to this question that satisfies you.
Even if everyone chips in and describes their favourite features, those
features may be worthless to you personally. So why bother asking?

Try the languages out yourself, both of them; program a non-trivial
application in both languages. See how each feels to you, and which
better suits your development style.

Determine which language has, in your opinion, better support via
documentation and community.

Then come back to the list and tell us which is the better language. ;-)
[color=blue]
>This is not a troll. I'm language shopping and I want people's answers. I
>don't know beans about Ruby or have any preconceived ideas about it.
>[/color]

Exactly: so don't ask for others' ideas. Since you haven't used Ruby
yet, their ideas will simply give you preconceived ideas. What you need
are postconceived ideas; harder to gain, but infinitely more valuable.

-- Graham

**Ville Vainio** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> wrote in message news:<bhpbc6$1p lpe$1@ID-203719.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[color=blue]
> This is not a troll. I'm language shopping and I want people's answers. I[/color]

...
[color=blue]
> also talking about Ruby. So it seems that Ruby has the potential to compete
> with and displace Python. I'm curious on what basis it might do so.[/color]

:-)

**Asun Friere** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> wrote in message news:<bhpbc6$1p lpe$1@ID-203719.news.uni-berlin.de>...[color=blue]
> What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something. What is
> it?
>
> This is not a troll. I'm language shopping and I want people's answers.[/color]

When I was language shopping python was up to version 1.5.2 (actually
it was probably up to 1.6.1, but not on the system I was using), and
there were a number of distinct advantages that I felt Ruby held over
Python.

First and foremost, everything in Ruby was (behaved like) an object.
That is now true for Python also.

Secondly you could subclass basic types, again, this is true for
Python as well.

Thirdly the regular expression syntax was Perl-like and built into the
core of the language (althought unlike perl, of course, the syntax
generated an object). In a way this is unaesthetic, certainly
python's approach is much more consistent with the object oriented
nature of the language. However, I use regexp so often, and still
find the re module cumbersome in comparison to Perl's way of doing
things, so imho this is still and advantage (ugly as it may be) that
Ruby holds.

Finally I was apprehensive about the 'signigicant whitespace' issue in
Python, and thought that Ruby's approach was safer. I've definitely
changed my mind on that one. Now all manner of obsceneties are heard
to eminate from my corner of the room whenever I have to program in a
language which requires me to explicitly delimit blocks @!$*&#!!

Some folks also like the existence of code blocks and iterators in
Ruby, (Well Python has its own kind of iterators now as well,) but
that didn't concern me greatly.

In the end two things persuaded me to go with Python. Firstly I work
in a 'Perl shop' and I'm supposed to write Perl (which I sometimes
do), my using Python was already considered using an "obscure
language," Ruby would have been quite beyond the pale. More
importantly, Ruby just did not have anywhere near the range of
libraries that Python did. Specifically Ruby, at that time, did not
have any sensible way of handling XML (ie no SAX or DOM libraries).

In my opinion, most of the advantages Ruby had over Python seem to
have disappeared as Python has developed.

**Asun Friere** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote in message news:<3F4040F8. 87901505@alcyon e.com>...[color=blue]
> "Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
>[color=green]
> > What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something.
> > What is
> > it?[/color]
>
> Wouldn't it make much more sense to ask Ruby people this, rather than
> Python people?[/color]

Maybe he can't speak Japanese?

**Brandon J. Van Every** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Graham Fawcett wrote:[color=blue]
> Brandon J. Van Every wrote:
>[color=green]
>> What's better about Ruby than Python?[/color]
>
> You're never going to get an answer to this question that satisfies
> you. Even if everyone chips in and describes their favourite
> features, those features may be worthless to you personally. So why
> bother asking?[/color]

You assume too much. My attitudes and criteria aren't yours. I ask because
it's useful to me, not because it's useful to you.
[color=blue]
> Try the languages out yourself, both of them; program a non-trivial
> application in both languages.[/color]

I frankly don't have the time, and am not afraid to leverage other people's
experiences to some degree.
[color=blue]
> Exactly: so don't ask for others' ideas.[/color]

You have a profound difference of philosophy that I don't share. You seem
to think other people's opinions are all or nothing.

--
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** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Asun Friere wrote:[color=blue]
> Erik Max Francis <max@alcyone.co m> wrote in message
> news:<3F4040F8. 87901505@alcyon e.com>...[color=green]
>> "Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>>> What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something.
>>> What is
>>> it?[/color]
>>
>> Wouldn't it make much more sense to ask Ruby people this, rather than
>> Python people?[/color]
>
> Maybe he can't speak Japanese?[/color]

I can't actually. Didn't know that Ruby was Nippocentric. And no, it
wouldn't make "more sense" to ask the Ruby people this. They are going to
give an answer that's biased from the Ruby perspective. For purposes of
this post, I'm interested in the Python biased perspective.

--
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.

**Erik Max Francis** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" wrote:
[color=blue]
> I frankly don't have the time, and am not afraid to leverage other
> people's
> experiences to some degree.[/color]

But surely in the time you've been considering the use of Python --
particularly now, since you claim to have to decided to use it as one of
your main development languages -- you could have taken a few hours or
so it would require to read and really absorb the tutorial (much less,
of course, if you're already a competent programmer, as you claim to
be)? You've certainly spent a great deal more than a few hours since
you first started posting your questions here, which was more than two
years ago (first coherent Python-related questions appeared in 2001
April, according to Google Groups).

--
Erik Max Francis && max@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
__ San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && &tSftDotIotE
/ \ 'Tis man's to fight, but Heaven's to give success.
\__/ Homer

**Sean 'Shaleh' Perry** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

> > Try the languages out yourself, both of them; program a non-trivial[color=blue][color=green]
> > application in both languages.[/color]
>
> I frankly don't have the time, and am not afraid to leverage other people's
> experiences to some degree.
>[color=green]
> > Exactly: so don't ask for others' ideas.[/color]
>
> You have a profound difference of philosophy that I don't share. You seem
> to think other people's opinions are all or nothing.
>[/color]

these two statements are the crux of the problem.

If you joined a Chevy car mailing list and asked "what is better about Ford
than Chevy?" would you expect to hear intelligent, insightful responses?
Perhaps you would receive good answers, perhaps not. But if you never
actually looked at a Ford how would you know?

You see, by asking here you have people who have already decided against Ruby
for whatever reason. All we can give you is our reasons for not choosing it.
For balance you would HAVE to ask the Ruby people why they chose it over
something like Python.

Stating "well I just don't have time and would like others to decide for me"
just won't get you very far. Might as well being asking the group to finish
your homework assignments.

BTW, my reason, like many here is Ruby looks like Perl and I prefer Python's
syntax and design approach. Not a very scientific reason, about the same as
saying "well, I like blue ones more than red ones".

**Andrew Dalke** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

Brandon J. Van Every:[color=blue]
> I have
> noticed, however, that every programmer I talk to who's aware of Python is
> also talking about Ruby. So it seems that Ruby has the potential to[/color]
compete[color=blue]
> with and displace Python. I'm curious on what basis it might do so.[/color]

Your logic is specious and your observations biased.

Perhaps the programmers "aware of Python" that you know are
more interested in comparing different languages, so know more
about languages in general?

How many Ruby programmers (per capita) do you know talking about
Python? Perhaps Python "has the potential to ...display Ruby"

How many Python-aware programmers do you know who also talk
about Java? Also talk about C#? About C++? About BASIC?

I don't know the programmers you sample from. but looking at c.l.py
since the start of the year, I can give you some numbers about other
languages mentioned. (From Google 'groups' search, numbers are
approximate.)

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
pascal group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 295
ruby group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 279
haskell group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 155
eiffel group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 99
rexx group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 99
awk group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today 58
ocaml group:comp.lang .python from Jan 1, 2003 to today. 26

Based on your logic, you should try pascal or tcl instead of ruby.
Though you really should be using perl or Java.

Of course, percent change is a better metric for up-and-coming,
so here's numbers for all of 2002. To get estimated 2003 numbers I
multiplied the above by 12/8, which means I'm a little on the low side
since August is only half-way through.

2002 2003 change
est. %
Java 2710 2520 - 7
perl 2580 2325 -10
tcl 922 705 -23
pascal 396 442 +12
ruby 542 418 -22
haskell 107 232 +117
eiffel 65 148 +128
rexx 95 148 + 56
awk 93 87 - 6
ocaml 60 39 - 35

Again, you looks like you should use Pascal. Or maybe haskell,
which was talked about a lot more this year already than all of
last year! (I keep meaning to learn some of it.)

So I suspect despite your statement about having no preconceived
ideas about Ruby that you do have some, which sensitises you
to discussions which mention it.

BTW, ruby's numbers on c.l.py for
2003 446 (I used 12/7.5 for a slightly better estimate)
2002 542
2001 487
2000 291
1999 162
1998 4

And Haskell's
2003 248 (ditto on 7.5)
2002 107
2001 282
2000 251
1999 63
1998 7

Given how many more people use Ruby than Haskell and how much
Ruby is mentioned as an alternative to the big 3 of Perl, Python,
and Tcl, it kinda makes you wonder if we aren't just a bunch of
programming language wonks in this group. :) If so, it would again
mean you aren't critical enough of your own beliefs and conclusions.

Andrew
dalke@dalkescie ntific.com

**John J. Lee** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Michael Peuser" <mpeuser@web.de > writes:
[...][color=blue]
> I don't know much about Ruby but I did some substantial programming in
> Python and Perl. I should now consider side issues more important than
> language features itself:
>
> - How fast does the code run
> - Is there an acceptable IDE (best: GUI/IDE RAD-Framework)
> - Is there a flexible and fast GUI Toolkit
> -Can you access OpenGL
> - Which platforms are supported
> - How easy is multimedia (Sound/Movie in- and output)
> - How can you deploy your program
> - How large is a self contained EXE file
> - Is there mathematical support (array arithmetic, statistical functions,
> plotting)
> - Is there documentation
> - Are there books[/color]

AFAIK, none of these are distinguishing features between Python and
Perl.

The really major differences are: Perl has tons of library code
(though Python has lots) and Perl has a pile of stuff you have to
learn that brings no significant benefits. It'd be great to see more
research on the impact of the nonsense-overhead that comes with Perl
(and is absent from Python).

John

**Roberto Amorim** · Jul 18 '05, 01:40 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

> 6. The way Ruby handles parameterless functions as if they were[color=blue]
> properties.[/color]

That's the thing I like most about Ruby. But I couldn't get past its
Perl-like syntax and the garbage collector (the latter when mixed with
embedding).

Anyway, since Ruby 1.8.0 is (finally) out, I'll try it again to see if it
can be a viable alternative to Python (at least on some areas), but I doubt
it. Python, as a multiparadigm language, is quite unique on its approach,
and it seems much more fit to large projects than Ruby.

Regards,

Roberto

**Michael Peuser** · Jul 18 '05, 01:41 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"John J. Lee" <jjl@pobox.co m> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:87ekzj6pbz .fsf@pobox.com. ..[color=blue]
> "Michael Peuser" <mpeuser@web.de > writes:
> [...][color=green]
> > I don't know much about Ruby but I did some substantial programming in
> > Python and Perl. I should now consider side issues more important than
> > language features itself:
> >
> > - How fast does the code run
> > - Is there an acceptable IDE (best: GUI/IDE RAD-Framework)
> > - Is there a flexible and fast GUI Toolkit
> > -Can you access OpenGL
> > - Which platforms are supported
> > - How easy is multimedia (Sound/Movie in- and output)
> > - How can you deploy your program
> > - How large is a self contained EXE file
> > - Is there mathematical support (array arithmetic, statistical[/color][/color]
functions,[color=blue][color=green]
> > plotting)
> > - Is there documentation
> > - Are there books[/color]
>
> AFAIK, none of these are distinguishing features between Python and
> Perl.
>[/color]
I absolutly disagree! We are (probably) not talking about the academic
merits of the languages, but of what you can do with them with reasonable
effort.

Those "side issues" I mentioned above (and some more, and some of them not
relevant for everyone) have - this is my experience - influenced my
productivity more than everything else.
Most of the things we do with - especially so called script languages is
inetrfacing library packages. Thoug this is not a feature of the languge it
is most important how to do it, what pachages have already been bound etc
etc. Consider the permanent discussions about what GUI oder IDE to use. The
OpenSource situation is, well unclear. I have learning a lot about that
durung the last two weeks, and I would say: Well perhaps take eric3 and
PyQt. But in fact I have no experience with eric and I very little with Qt.

If all those would be in a state as VB with its Active-X support and quitre
acceptable application framework or - eben better - as compiled RealBasic on
Macintosh with its universal Quicktime interface, then I should say you
could discuss fines language matters. (One should mention Delphi as well.)

But this is not the case.
[color=blue]
> The really major differences are: Perl has tons of library code
> (though Python has lots) and Perl has a pile of stuff you have to
> learn that brings no significant benefits. It'd be great to see more
> research on the impact of the nonsense-overhead that comes with Perl
> (and is absent from Python).[/color]

Just amount of "library code" is not what matters. You cannot have found it
on my list ;-)
Perl is not much better than Python - I think I did not mention that
explicitly.

Kindly Michael P
[color=blue]
>
> John[/color]

**Alexander Schmolck** · Jul 18 '05, 01:41 AM

Re: What's better about Ruby than Python?

"Brandon J. Van Every" <vanevery@3DPro grammer.com> writes:
[color=blue]
> What's better about Ruby than Python? I'm sure there's something. What is
> it?
>[/color]

Since I think this is a reasonable question and I haven't seen to many direct
answer I'll give it a shot.

I recall the following, roughly in order of importance (treat with caution,
it's some time that I looked at Ruby):

0. I it's possible to redefine classes at runtime without going bonkers
(instances automatically get updated to the new class definitions). This, I
think is by far python's greatest flaw, amongst other things it greatly
compromises its interactiveness , which is a key virtue. If someone can
explain to me how I'm wrong on this and python's behavior really is sane,
I'll be eternally grateful.

1. syntactic distinction between destructive and nondestructive methods
(list.sort! vs list.sort)

2. lightweight lambdas (blocks)

3. Generally more OOation (in the style of Smalltalk), if you think that's
good (doesn't make functional programming easier, for example).
The class hierachies are certainly cleaner and, thanks to 'modules' (viz.
mixins), have less duplication. In python, for example there is no
reasonable way to find out whether something is a Mapping, or a number and
classes that should be taxonmically connected aren't and thus reduplicate
code (or just miss random features; e.g. both `str` and `list` have methods
that the other one could do with; in ruby this is handled by the
Enumeration module)

5. continuations, should you so desire.

6. An interesting attempt at an OO case statement.

I should add that 1. and 2. are however inexcusably flawed, especially since
they are really just (badly) adapted from scheme and smalltalk, respectively:

irb(main):001:0 > [1,2].sort
[1, 2]
irb(main):002:0 > [1,2].sort!
[1, 2]
irb(main):003:0 > [1].sort
[1]
irb(main):004:0 > [1].sort!
nil
^^^ !!!

irb(main):017:0 > x = 10
10
irb(main):018:0 > [1,2,3].reject {|x| x < 2}
[2, 3]
irb(main):019:0 > x
3

This together with some other symptoms (what the hell is the point of having
Array.assoc?) gives me the overall impression that Ruby is an uglified
smalltalk, hideously disguised as Perl for mainstream appeal with some random
scheme features on top crafted by someone who doesn't seem to have quite
understood either smalltalk or scheme. OTOH, smalltalk and scheme at least
aren't such bad languages to steal from (even badly) and Ruby has one
worthwhile feature over (standard) smalltalk, mixins (there is BTW, some
interesting work in the squeak community on 'traits').

'as

What's better about Ruby than Python?

What's better about Ruby than Python?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment