Re: [tlug] ruby and python in Japan

["Zev Blut" <zb@??>]

OK, I might have been a bit uppity at the time so I will try and reply
with a bit more information.  Although, there is a member in this list
who came from a Python background, but who now like Ruby a bit more.
I am hoping he will speak for himself on this topic (hint hint).

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 17:29:47 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull  
<stephen@??> wrote:

> Zev Blut writes:

> Anyway, I'm not arguing from information, I'm asking from ignorance.
> I'd like to know something about Ruby before I invest time in it.  As
> you say, Haskell is attractive because it's very different.  Ruby is
> only interesting to me if (a) I need to hack an existing Ruby
> application (I don't yet) or (b) Ruby has genuine advantages over
> Python.  You claim that (b) is the case:

To be honest, I do not program in Python and I have only looked at it
from a cursory glance.  I have modified some Python source code in
Trac to remove its' demand that every svn commiter has an associated
email address.  That was not too hard to do.

>  > so I will end it with this.  I think Ruby and Python have a number
>  > of similar attributes, but that Ruby has a significantly stronger
>  > OO model and other
>
> But where is it "stronger"?  What is it that Ruby's model makes
> possible, or at least significantly easier and less fragile than in
> Python's?

It is hard to describe, but in Ruby everything is an Object.  This has
a profound impact on development and is something that you just have
to try to fully understand.  Be warned, it does make going back to a
language that claims to be OO but does not follow this model very
hard.

>  > techniques like blocks and lambdas that make it a bit strong than
>  > Python.
>
> Python *has* lambdas; it just doesn't have anonymous ones (I don't
> consider the toy "one-line lambda" a real lambda).  Python's functions
> are first class objects; they can be assigned and queried, you can use
> them to build closures, and you can define local functions (as
> contrasted with methods).  Again, this seems to be a minor case of
> syntactic sugar to me.
>
> Blocks are another matter.  I don't really understand blocks; what are
> they good for?

Blocks are what got me excited about Ruby at first.  They are
basically anonymous closures.  In Ruby they are used heavily in the
API and make for a more pleasant experience.  I would like to write
more about these things, but so much has been said on the web that I
will just provide a number of links.

Blocks:

* http://martinfowler.com/bliki/CollectionClosureMethod.html

* http://www.martinfowler.com/bliki/Closure.html

Ruby and Python comparisons (Most appear a bit outdated, but still  
relevant)

* http://www.rubycentral.com/faq/rubyfaq-2.html

* http://www.rexx.com/~oinkoink/Ruby_v_Python.html

* http://blog.ianbicking.org/ruby-python-power.html

* http://onestepback.org/index.cgi/Tech/Ruby/PythonAndRuby.rdoc


Simple intro to Ruby for Java programmers:

* http://onestepback.org/articles/10things/index.html

Cheers,
Zev