From: Gyoung-Yoon Noh Date: 2005-06-11T05:04:13+09:00 Subject: Re: Building a business case for Ruby Creating a PyTypeObject (C implementation of python class) in C needs much boring work. Actually, PyTypeObject is just a huge struct which owns about 30 fields. It would explains why Python has no base class diagram. Most Python classes just inherit root 'object'. In a deeper sense, Python's type system would be much closer to 'Duck Typing' than Ruby, I think. Anyway, it would be a pain in the ass to make a python class in C without tools such as SWIG, pyrex and BoostPython. I like Ruby way. Creating C extensions in Ruby seems much like OOP in C, and so much like programming Ruby itself. On 6/8/05, Curt Hibbs wrote: > Stephen Kellett wrote: > > In message , Joe Van Dyk > > writes > > > >> 1) C extensions allow us to easily integrate with external existing > >> software, but I don't know how Perl or Python does in that respect. > > > > > > Having recently written some Ruby and Python extensions I'd say they are > > about the same level of complexity. The extensions I wrote did the same > > thing for each language and took roughly the same amount of time. The > > Python extension used a bit less code and was easier to write, but the > > differences are trivial and not worth arguing over. > > I like the way that Ruby extensions appear (to a Ruby program) to be a > *real* Ruby object/class, no different than if I had coded it in Ruby. > > I'm interested to know if the same thing true of Python extensions? > > Thanks, > Curt > > -- http://nohmad.sub-port.net