171–180 of 198 posts
1. Get latest OpenSolaris. 2. Install latest SunStudio 3. download latest source of Python (3.1) and Ruby (1.9.1). 4. Try to build them with CC=/opt/SUNWspro/bin/cc" CFLAGS="-m64" 5. See the results. Run make test for ruby.
After that, your problem disappears.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I should point out that capitalize(), of course, returns a new capitalized string, just as it does in Ruby. But in Ruby you also have String#capitalize! And as for indentation, I think Guido should have followed through with making tabs a syntax error, because they are part of the syntax and are fiendish sources of error. Let's just say you have this code, properly indented with spaces: class X: def visible(self): pa…
I should point out that capitalize(), of course, returns a new capitalized string, just as it does in Ruby. But in Ruby you also have String#capitalize! So the quote deals with mutability? I suppose that makes more sense, since Ruby tends to favor mutable objects. Of course, to my Python-based mind changing the definition of 'a' or 3 seems like a poor idea. And as for indentation, I think Guido should have followed t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I currently use Python and Django for the following reasons: 1) Coworker familiar with Python 2) I had an easier time understanding the mechanics of Django than I did Rails 3) Some libraries I needed were only in Python However, from a language point of view, I have a slight preference towards Ruby. Here are some things I like: 1) More consistent commitment to object paradigm, e.g. all function calls are actually met…
Humor me for a moment, because I've been asking this question of many people for a long time and have never yet gotten a straight answer. Why is len() always the thing people pick on? Why is it always "Python uses len(obj) instead of obj.len()", and never "Python uses str(obj) instead of obj.str()", or any of the various polymorphic built-ins like sum()? I've seen this so many times now that I'm honestly quite curiou…
>>> def f():
... print("Helllo __call__")
...
>>> f.__call__.__call__.__call__.__call__()
Helllo __call__
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everything is an object in Ruby, including the blocks. I'm not clear how you can't pass around a block -- or is it the block + iterator metadata you're talking about? I suspect that's just an experience problem, where Python promotes iterators over lambdas so lends itself to a different style of programming; I'm not sure how often you'd want/need to pass a full iterator around in Ruby. Personally I find blocks far mo…
You can do ", ".join(x) on any x that you can do "for y in x" on. If join were a method of the list (or sequence, or iterator, ...) then it would need to be defined over and over again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting an article on the topic: Having ploughed through several tutorials, I did not find Ruby particularly "elegant", or its syntax particularly obvious. Much of it seemed ad hoc, thrown together, in particular when there were several different ways of doing something, and it seemed to be the philosophy of the language to provide all of them. I did not find its constructs as intuitive and natural as claimed, trying…
Well, I can answer at least a few of those 'WHY?!'s. Firstly starting with my_string['foo'] = 'bar', this is a syntax that is used a lot in Ruby for anytime that you wish to recover a subset of a collection - you can use it with a Dir object for example to recover a subset of directories/files, or in the case of a hash, to recover the object stored at the key. The thing is that you need to think about it as being a s…
Python has a __rmult__ method. If you do A * B, first it internally calls A.__mult__(B) then if that raises TypeError, it tries B.__rmult__(A). It's pretty elegant, I think. For Ruby, it wouldn't look as nice to do A.r* though, I guess, but it would be a nice bit of functionality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
...strange ad-hoc combination of other languages. I call bullshit, sir. Ruby is objectively less strange and more consistent than Python. Some has to do with the fact that Python is older - hence has more baggage to carry. A lot of it, though, just has to do with poor/missing design choices. Specifics? - ruby 'block' passing convention is much cleaner and more powerful than python's 'for'/iterators. - python's global…
Quoting an article on the topic: Having ploughed through several tutorials, I did not find Ruby particularly "elegant", or its syntax particularly obvious. Much of it seemed ad hoc, thrown together, in particular when there were several different ways of doing something, and it seemed to be the philosophy of the language to provide all of them. I did not find its constructs as intuitive and natural as claimed, trying…
You know that under the covers in Python str(1) works by calling (1).__str__(), right? That's why you can make str(my_custom_class) work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quoting an article on the topic: Having ploughed through several tutorials, I did not find Ruby particularly "elegant", or its syntax particularly obvious. Much of it seemed ad hoc, thrown together, in particular when there were several different ways of doing something, and it seemed to be the philosophy of the language to provide all of them. I did not find its constructs as intuitive and natural as claimed, trying…
"5" * 2 == "55" You're calling a method on a string, so you got the string doubled. Seems to make sense to me. Obviously in this case the order of the arguments matter.
It's not obvious in terms of intuitiveness, no. Why not extend the Integer class to know to call mystring's * method when their order is reversed? That would be intuitive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To claim that Ruby is a tangled soup of options and syntactic sugar is to miss the point really. What is the point? I sincerely wish to learn, for my own intellectual curiosity. Because I have read Ruby code and I have done Ruby tutorials and talked to people who use Ruby and for the life of me, no matter how hard I meditate on the issue, I cannot understand why anyone would use Ruby over Python. I don't feel Python…
Ditto. The syntax seems cluttered more cluttered with sigils (some optional), and much of it seems merely to support things that Python does much more readably. I occasionally tangle with a friend who is a Ruby fan, and who tried Python back in the 1.4 or 1.5 days and gave up on it. He still hasn't delivered me any solid reasons for trying out Ruby. It is entirely possible that neither language presents sufficient re…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"a community rife with arrogant children." During FISL, a couple days ago, I witnessed something that really bothered me. It was a presentation comparing Rails with Seaside (which is, by itself, like comparing racing cars with subarines) and the arrogance of the Rails guy dismissing Seaside, Squeak and Smalltalk was very uncomfortable. It seemed the room was too small to fit all the egos inside it. I considered stayi…
That's how I feel about Django at this point. A quick glance at reddit reveals how out of hand it's getting; the answer to every web programming question is "Django!" regardless of whether it's relevant or not. And every popular comment or blog post by Django developers discussing Rails contains a bunch of inaccuracies. At least with Rails there's enough of a push back that even the the annoying minority is better be…