This is one of those articles where any discussion thread about it will lead to the sharp knives coming out between the Pythonistas and the Rubyists. The languages are so close in so many ways, and yet so different, that it is bound to happen.
What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
51–60 of 129 posts
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#52Basically Ruby and Python fill the same niche. When two species fill a different niche in nature, they can co-exists. When they fill the same niche, it is a bitter fight for survival.
more evidence: vi vs The Unholy, er, I mean, Emacs
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, the equivalent would probably be something along the lines of: if baz > 10 func = :foo else func = :bar end result = self.send(func)
That may accomplish the same thing, but the direct translation would be: if baz > 10 func = method(:foo) else func = method(:bar) end result = func.call Here, we actually deal with the Method objects, rather than just sending a dynamic message. Although the send() approach would be closer to idiomatic Ruby, I wanted to emphasize that dealing with methods as first class objects in Ruby is indeed possible.
This discussion really makes me appreciate clojure.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may accomplish the same thing, but the direct translation would be: if baz > 10 func = method(:foo) else func = method(:bar) end result = func.call Here, we actually deal with the Method objects, rather than just sending a dynamic message. Although the send() approach would be closer to idiomatic Ruby, I wanted to emphasize that dealing with methods as first class objects in Ruby is indeed possible.
I HATE dealing with first class functions in Ruby. I understand that it was a design choice, but man, in Python you can pass a function or a lambda and you just don't have to worry about which one you're calling. In Ruby, () will explode on a Proc object. What is with that?!!?
Are you actually passing around methods in Ruby and, if so, why? As I've pointing out in the past (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1141245), passing around methods is very rare in Ruby due to the flexibility of Procs.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#55The title made me nervous that this would be run-of-the-mill fanboy garbage. But I trust the author (Alex Martelli), so I read it, and I'm glad I did. It's reasonable and sane. My two big take-away points: 1) It's very nearly a wash. Ruby and Python are so close together (beneath any superficial differences) that distinguishing is almost an exercise in futility. 2) The key thing about Ruby he doesn't like is its "TOT…
We run probably one of the largest Ruby production systems that has ever been made and the dynamism and "monkey patching" are used daily to skillfully make the language better and better over time for the tasks that we solve. It's absolutely crucial to teams that internalize it's power and pitfalls.
I was about to ask if you work for Twitter, but then I read your bio. I like Shopify, all the shops built with it look real slick.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
I HATE dealing with first class functions in Ruby. I understand that it was a design choice, but man, in Python you can pass a function or a lambda and you just don't have to worry about which one you're calling. In Ruby, () will explode on a Proc object. What is with that?!!?
Because () doesn't call a method, it's simply used where a method call occurs. To call a callable object, you use #call or (as mentioned by epochwolf) #[], the latter of which I personally detest. It's fun to contrast this with Lua, by the way.
Lua is a great little language... I only really 'discovered' it a few weeks ago and have really enjoyed what I've seen so far. I don't think it will replace Ruby for me, but I like it's minimal feel for comparison...
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#57I think he's totally right about how to call methods. They just don't feel as first class as they do in JS or Lisp. I don't agree with his criticism of dynamic strings, however. The only time you want immutable strings is when you're not using them as strings. Ruby has symbols for when you need a hash key.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#58The title made me nervous that this would be run-of-the-mill fanboy garbage. But I trust the author (Alex Martelli), so I read it, and I'm glad I did. It's reasonable and sane. My two big take-away points: 1) It's very nearly a wash. Ruby and Python are so close together (beneath any superficial differences) that distinguishing is almost an exercise in futility. 2) The key thing about Ruby he doesn't like is its "TOT…
About point 2: the author is probably ignorant of ast module ( http://docs.python.org/library/ast.html ), which allows the programmer to take any ast and recompile it to anything he/she wants (in runtime, unlike Lisp macros, but alike parse tree and ruby2ruby in ruby). This feature allows you to transform things like "1, minute" into "Minute(1)", enabling dsls, and "wrecking havoc" all over. In ruby, you don't have t…
It takes efforts to write a simple Transformer using ast. Along the way of making one, your instinct will tell you that doing so is a bad idea, probably.
In Ruby, meta-programming is always powerful and always so easy to use. I don't have problem using these methods, but it pains me when some crappy monkey-patching-flavored gem (For example, cache-money) decided to bite me intermittently.
Or when debugging the code of some kick-ass-ninja-rockstar programmer where he decided to generate methods using both class_eval and instance_eval (along the way, generating the "def statements" using string interpolation) inside a module that supposed to be injected into ActiveRecord object.
I do agree with your last paragraph completely. The real ninja is capable of stopping himself from beheading anyone he sees just because he can.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#59The title made me nervous that this would be run-of-the-mill fanboy garbage. But I trust the author (Alex Martelli), so I read it, and I'm glad I did. It's reasonable and sane. My two big take-away points: 1) It's very nearly a wash. Ruby and Python are so close together (beneath any superficial differences) that distinguishing is almost an exercise in futility. 2) The key thing about Ruby he doesn't like is its "TOT…
If you want to know about Monkey patching visit the Smalltalk community. They've been doing it a lot longer.
Re: What's better about Ruby than Python? - comp.lang.python
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that anyone at any point can monkey patch any built-in is a potential liability for large teams, with average programmers. It must be addressed by culture and code review that you may or may not have. Still worth it though :)
Are there many ruby app built by large teams? In my experience, teams building Ruby apps tend to be much smaller than teams building Java apps .. That said, this is a problem for any libraries that you might want to include, you have to trust that the authors followed conventions and didn't do any thing 'evil'. Ruby Rewrite ( http://rewrite.rubyforge.org/ ) was conceived to specifically avoid this sort of problem.
The best software is built by small teams.