From: Joao Pedrosa <joaopedrosa@...>
Date: 2004-10-21T09:11:08+09:00
Subject: Re: Python vs. Ruby (Re: A concise description of Ruby?)

Hi,

> - @vars sux

Used often with a nice syntax color. Can't be beaten by (self) self. 

> - $vars too

Used for global variables, matches from regular expressions and 10 to
20 "Perl" variables. With a nice syntax color and after getting used
to them, they become handy.

> - why should I write 'end'??

Better to use "end" or "}" than to use spaces or tabs. Ruby is much
more maleable because of these. And you can see that in ERuby, ERB or
RHTML. :-) (code generation)

> - functions should be objects and __call__ is cool (the function
> aplication operator, () )

AnyClass() is not as meaninful as AnyClass.new. 

This remindes me of capitalization issues. Ruby is clearer:
- methods and variables names start with a lower case character
- classes and modules start with an upper case character.

With Ruby we call the methods directly from the objects, which make ()
kind of irrelevant, and Ruby allows us to not use them.

anObject.method1.method2

This chaining of methods isn't recommended (train wreckage), but they
aren't forbidden as well. Actually, we get addicted to them. It looks
pretty.

> - multiple inheritance is a good thing

Mixin is an awesome solution for most problems. It has an ugly name,
but it's an included module. A Ruby module is
module Easy
end

> - __nonzero__ is sometimes useful (#to_bool for rubyists )

Not sure about this, but
if anObject
end

is boolean enough most of the time. if anObject is not nil, then the
following block is executed.

> - blocks are useless

Wow. They make up for the shortest solutions for many problems.
Closures and blocks are awesome and addicting.

> - python's metaclasses are great

Maybe. But Ruby is very extendable. And when it comes to modules,
classes and objects, hard to beat.

> - list comprehensions are far better than map() and the likes

Maybe. But closures and maps allow for some neat solutions. List
comprehension is too alien for me.

> - hey, writing self is good, you can name it cls or ignore it when non
> writing instance methods

Many Python programs may not use OO for the "self" reason. :-) OO can
be as complicated and as easy as one wants. With Ruby, OO is piece of
cake.

> - having separated concepts for statements and expressions is useful
> (just heard once)

Don't know about this.

> - callcc is the devil

Never used it. :-)

> - TIMTOWTDI is a wrong concept

Don't know about this.

> - general dislike of %stuff literals

Don't know about this.

> - lack of named arguments

Hashes may be used? :-)

> - docstrings are cool

Cool. 

> note that not all of them think all this, I just summed all the
> different critics.

Thanks for them. It's hard to know exactly from where to start when
comparing the two. But they aren't interchangeable. I can't use Python
with the fluidity that is possible with Ruby.

> But I think they just had a quick look at ruby, not a deep one, and they
> usually agree that in the end there are far more similarities than
> differences.

It's hard to study both languages deep enough to make a fair
comparision. The best comparision may be with examples.

Cheers,
Joao