From: djberg96@... (Daniel Berger)
Date: 2004-10-28T04:44:02+09:00
Subject: Re: The real Ruby vs. Python.

Abe Vionas_MailingList <mailinglist_abe@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<20041027141106.45307.qmail@web90010.mail.scd.yahoo.com>...
> What it comes down to is what it's coming down to for
> me... platform maturity.
> 
> Python on windows has a broad range of libraries
> available for anything you could ever dream of:
> Apache, Java, Email, Protocols, GTK, Qt, Tk, OpenGL,
> PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc etc etc.

Ruby has these, too.

> Ruby, on the other hand, while it has a comprehensive
> offering on the Linux platform, is hamstrung on
> windows by it's lack in important areas.

Such as?

> If libraries
> exist, they more often then not are NOT being actively
> maintained (my research last night indicated that by
> and large more Python libraries are continually
> actively maintained).

Again, you don't state specifically which libraries.

> This last point is important
> because at one time or another Ruby has HAD libraries
> to cover any need, but without active maintenance they
> are nearly worthless. I for one will not even look at
> a library that hasn't had a release in 2004.

Still no info.
 
> So, this is what it comes down to for me... Which
> language offers what I need in terms of libraries? I
> decided to go looking after having an excrutiating
> time finding just Ruby FastCGI, mod_ruby, and
> PostgreSQL libraries which would actually work on
> Windows - forget being maintained at all. No luck
> though. Even a post to the Ruby-Talk list asking for
> help with an attempt to install FastCGI for Ruby
> yielded only one reply.

Ok, so we've come to the crux of your post - you had problems with
PostgreSQL and FastCGI.  So, from that you've drawn the conclusion
that Python has superior library support on Windows?
 
> Finally, while the Ruby Gem system is exceptionally
> easy to work with and a real boon to Ruby, it doesn't
> quite match the ease of installing ANY given Python
> library. Every Python windows library for the most
> part comes with a windows installer (exe or msi).

You can thank Mark Hammond for the libraries, and Sophos (aka
ActiveState) for the packaging.  Ruby doesn't have a company backing
it (yet).
 
> Keep in mind that it may be more doable to run Ruby on
> windows given substantial C programming/compiling
> experience, I don't know. Obviously, if I had the
> experience to satisfy that statement I would be able
> to answer my own question. : -)

Between ruby/dl, WIN32API and OLE + WMI you can do just about anything
you need without a C compiler.
 
> So, for those of us who aren't C gurus and don't run
> Linux, Python seems to win out when compared to Ruby.

WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU MISSING?

> Which is unfortunate because I really love Ruby, and
> don't like a number of Python elements. However,
> having the capabilities I need is much more important
> than syntax preferences at the moment.
>
> Sadly, in order for Ruby to really take over the world
> it will require a more substantial focus on providing
> windows compatible libraries and maintaining those
> libraries.

Start with http://www.rubyforge.org/projects/win32utils.  There's a
Windows installer, too, so you don't have to compile anything
yourself.

> If Ruby continues to be a Linux-centric
> language... I don't know. It just seems to me fairly
> obvious that in order to have true dominance you have
> to meet the needs of the major platforms. Python does
> this moreso then Ruby. And believe me, I wish it were
> the other way around.

Without any specific examples, this is nothing but hand waving.
 
> I'll keep my eye on Ruby, and return when it offers
> the essentials I require.

Which we have narrowed down to Postgres and FastCGI.

>But until then I'll be
> laboring under a hot Python sun.

You're laboring under worse than that I fear.

- Dan