Ruby 2.0.0 Released

Just as note: I don't really would call "len(o)" a "legacy call", as in "something it's here just for backward compatibility, but it's ugly and please don't use it".

It's more "the good way to do it" :D

len() is a perfect example of the duck typing and the "protocol-based" philosophy of python: its implementation it's something like

    def len(object):
        return object.__len__()

as in "just return the result of invoking the object method called __len__".

this lets you just call len() on every "len-able" object. They can be list, dict, custom objects... instead of the need to, I don't know, implements an explicit interface, or define a "getLength()", "size()", "length()", "length" (just an attribute, not a function to call), you can just define a "magic" (as in "normally you don't need to call this directly") method called __len__.

you can create your "not really a container, but it has a length!" object as something like

    >>> class C:
    ...     def __len__(self):
    ...         return 42
    ...
    >>> len(C())
    42

As indirect effect, it enables you to go on the functional-style approach... a simple

   map(len, list_of_lists)

it's more readable than

   map(lambda l: l.__len__(), list_of_lists)

(probably [len(l) for l in list_of_lists] it's more readable, but bear with me...)

I'm not really sure about the "ruby C abstractions": do you refer to the use of "object-like" structs used in the C sources of the "ruby MRI" implementation of "ruby-the-language"?

regarding the GC... I don't know, but why is the kind of the GC used by an implementation of the language (or the complete lack of a GC) relevant to the "everything is an object"?

just to be clear, I don't dislike ruby :) it's just that I don't find the "everything is an object" a way to discriminate between ruby and python.

You see, you wrote a bunch about how len is so cool in Python. But in the face of dynamic typing and polymorphism I didn't expect it to be any different really. Languages like Go that are statically typed make more of an issue about interfaces. Even in Dart they dropped explicit Interface usage in favor of implicit interfaces, considering that Dart is more explicit about matters than Ruby is.

Switching those function calls around reminds me of Delphi. When I first learned about Python, those calls reminded me of Delphi which I had used more. But once I learned Java, my frame of mind went from function(object) to object.function. With Ruby I found it quite intuitive. Now all languages work better if they approach things the way Java and Ruby do because of familiarity. That's why I like Dart for what it's worth.

Regarding C extensions of Ruby, they are like OO in C. Not sure how Python does it by default. But in Ruby all C extensions have a OO flavor. The first major book about Ruby writes about them: http://www.ruby-doc.org/docs/ProgrammingRuby/html/ext_ruby.h...

I think if you're counting references in the GC perhaps your C extensions are not very OO yet. In Ruby as in Java, the GC is an abstraction over reference counting. I think reference counting is often said to lead to more predictable performance at the cost of increasing the maintenance burden.

So again, not sure where Python is not "Objects all the way down." But Ruby has had the OO philosophy from early on. I think the Ruby OO approach started with the OO of the C extensions and went from there. Unlike Python that had a stronger procedural influence. The gap has closed since, but in Python a class is not written like this yet:

  class InRuby
  def aMethod
  end
  end

  class InDart {
  aMethod() {}
  }

With a proper runtime, you don't bolt caching on, but rather implement it throughout the code base using both local cache state and shared network cache state. The end result is something simpler to implement, maintain, and deploy.

However, thanks to using faster systems, the bar at which you must pay the implementation and deployment costs for caching is much higher than that of someone that needs it just to achieve acceptable speeds at all.

I think this is a little unfair - you do prefix your thoughts on the Ruby community with 'whether this is deserved or not', but then treat your perception of the community as fact.

I'm a Rubyist, and I've found that the vast majority of the community, events, interactions, etc are smart and civil. Yes, the Ruby community does have a bit of a publicity problem, but that's just the noisy/stupid minority.

Perhaps this is a common issue more broadly. (Are all PHP developers stupid? Are all lawyers money-hungry scum? Do politicians have no regard for intelligent discourse?) Our media (whether that be mainstream or Twitter and HN) is great at highlighting the controversy, but not a good source for a deeper understanding of the lay of the land.