From: ptkwt@... (Phil Tomson) Date: 2006-03-01T10:59:05+09:00 Subject: Re: Python for Fortran programmers In article , Cameron Laird wrote: >In article , >Joe Krahn wrote: > . > . > . >>Ruby should be a better fit for the typical Fortran programmer. I am >>surprised Ruby is not more the standard scripting language for >>scientists. At least some people who know both say that Ruby is better >>even though Python is (at least for now) more popular. > . > . > . >Please help me understand what you're writing here. I *think* >you're saying that Ruby is easier for Fortraneers to learn at >the syntactic level than Python. I can well imagine that. > >There's a distinct meaning of "better fit", though, that I want >to highlight. I propose that Python has established its "fitness" >through the record of successful projects implemented as >Python-Fortran *collaborations*. This is because Python was there earlier. > There are several aspects to >these realizations of partnerships between a couple of different >languages: >A. It might well be that two languages need a little > distance between themselves syntactically to > "marry" well; if they're too similar at this level, > there's no gain to a division of labor between > them. Maybe so, but I don't see how Ruby is anymore Fortran-like than Python ;-) >B. Python has a strong tradition of "playing nicely" > with outside resources. It was one of Python's > prominent initial goals, back at its invention in > the late '80s. Ruby also aims to do better at > this than, for example, Perl, but, as near as I > can tell, the Ruby community has never emphasized > cooperation with other languages as much as have > Pythonistas. >C. At a technical level, I believe it remains easier > to bind Python and Fortran than to do so with Ruby > and Fortran. There are lots of tools like the dl library, Inline::C (Inline::Fortran coming?) available in Ruby as well. I forget the details, but didn't someone earlier in this thread successfully create a Ruby<->Fortran bridge ? Phil