What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
blog.peepcode.com
What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
1–10 of 247 posts
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#2I think this is a good explanation of some of the very real differences between Python and Ruby. The lambda issue is almost enough to get me back to Ruby after switching to Python. I stick with Python mostly because of syntax (especially significant whitespace) and the batteries-included philosophy. I'm also in love with a Python library called pyparsing, the equivalent of which I haven't seen in any other language.
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#3I think this is a good explanation of some of the very real differences between Python and Ruby. The lambda issue is almost enough to get me back to Ruby after switching to Python. I stick with Python mostly because of syntax (especially significant whitespace) and the batteries-included philosophy. I'm also in love with a Python library called pyparsing, the equivalent of which I haven't seen in any other language.
As an aside, pyparsing is based strongly on the excellent "Parsec" library for Haskell. A number of other languages have similar parser combinator libraries.
If you're looking for Ruby libraries specifically, check out: http://treetop.rubyforge.org/ (Treetop uses PEGs rather than parser combinators, but like pyparsing it integrates very well with its host language.)
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#4It's not self.call(:my_method) --- that's nuts. It's my_method[param1, param2] which is aliased to my_method.call(param1, param2). Ruby's syntax can be a crapfest (like Procs not being callable without [] instead of () for example), but this isn't an example.
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#5Not related to the article, but I really like the setting and layout of the top section. Felt like I was reading a magazine!
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#6It's not self.call(:my_method) --- that's nuts. It's my_method[param1, param2] which is aliased to my_method.call(param1, param2). Ruby's syntax can be a crapfest (like Procs not being callable without [] instead of () for example), but this isn't an example.
proc[arg1,arg2] is terrible; strictly worse than proc.call arg1, arg2. When I see an id followed by brackets, I'm looking at a collection, not a callable. This is only exacerbated by Ruby's weird/useful [index,length] convention.
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#7Not related to the article, but I really like the setting and layout of the top section. Felt like I was reading a magazine!
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#8[deleted]
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#9Not related to the article, but I really like the setting and layout of the top section. Felt like I was reading a magazine!
These fancy new blogazines, as the kids are calling them, make me really wish I had design chops. My regular old blog looks so lame and uninteresting by comparison.
Re: What Pythonistas Think of Ruby
#10I think this is a good explanation of some of the very real differences between Python and Ruby. The lambda issue is almost enough to get me back to Ruby after switching to Python. I stick with Python mostly because of syntax (especially significant whitespace) and the batteries-included philosophy. I'm also in love with a Python library called pyparsing, the equivalent of which I haven't seen in any other language.
As an aside, pyparsing is based strongly on the excellent "Parsec" library for Haskell. A number of other languages have similar parser combinator libraries. If you're looking for Ruby libraries specifically, check out: http://treetop.rubyforge.org/ (Treetop uses PEGs rather than parser combinators, but like pyparsing it integrates very well with its host language.)
Good call on Parsec. Unfortunately, I haven't found Haskell nearly as practical as Python for day-to-day work.
Treetop I had not heard of. It looks interesting.