From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson) Date: 2005-12-21T10:57:48+09:00 Subject: Re: Bruce Eckel and Ruby In article <43A89B05.7060807@hypermetrics.com>, Hal Fulton wrote: >Robert Hicks wrote: >> I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you >> need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why". > >I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a >matter of taste. Right, but Eckel seemed to be suggesting that one must use a much more objective, almost scientific method for lanauge selection (and implied that Tate relied too much on 'preference'). In doing so he seemed to imply that people who had chosen Python had gone through this objective, scientific process while those who were headed in the direction of Ruby had not. > >It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to >different people. > Agreed, however, it seems that for many years now that there have been some doubts about whether there is room for two (seemingly similar)open source, dynamic, OO languages which largely appeal to the same developer base. This may actually be at the root of the animosity between the two camps: perhaps we each have a sneaking suspicion that if we could get the good developers from the other camp to come to ours we would be able to get a lot further (in development of libraries, docs, VMs etc.). A couple of years ago Ruby was the underdog, but now in terms of mindshare I think Ruby and Python are close to parity. If the momentum continues then Ruby 'mindshare' could outpace Python mindshare and perhaps begin to attract Python developers. That may be seen as worrisome to some in the Python camp including Eckel. The underlying message (reading between the lines) of some of Eckel's comments about Ruby seems to be a message for the Python faithful to remain in the fold. While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between the two groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for resources where resources in this case are developers. Phil