From: Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann@...>
Date: 2006-07-12T06:50:32+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby over Python?

On 7/11/06, Stefan Lang <langstefan@gmx.at> wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 July 2006 17:00, jmdeschamps@gmail.com wrote:
> > Doug H wrote:
> > > howachen@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > Besides ROR, can you give me a reason why perfer ruby instead
> > > > of python?
> > > >
> > > > seems to many users, they are very similar in nature...
> > > >
> > > > such as
> > > >
> > > > 1. non C or Java style syntax
> > > > 2. focus on codes readability, not like Perl
> > > > 3. ..
> > >
> > > Go ask this same question over on comp.lang.python and you'll see
> > > why you might prefer ruby.
> >
> > Funny you ask:
> > http://groups.google.ca/group/comp.lang.python/tree/browse_frm/thre
> >ad/40d8d11e12cb00ba/12306d4d9b0ce50c?rnum=11&q=ruby+or+python&_done=
> >%2Fgroup%2Fcomp.lang.python%2Fbrowse_frm%2Fthread%2F40d8d11e12cb00ba
> >%2F7256adbbc7f79afe%3Fq%3Druby+or+python%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_74bfb0743
> >eff1367
>
> Interesting. Someone there said that Python is more like Java
> and Ruby is more like Smalltalk. I've never written any
> Smalltalk, but I know some Lisp. IMO, Ruby and Python are both
> somewhere between Lisp and Java, Python closer to Java, Ruby
> closer to Lisp.
>
> I have learned many programming languages in the last two years
> and the ones I like most are Ruby, Lisp and Haskell. There is one
> thing these three languages have in common: It's easy and natural
> to construct domain specific languages in them, allowing you
> to write code that expresses more directly the problem at hand.
>
> Consider Rake/Rant syntax:
>
>     task :a do
>       ...
>     end
>
>     task :b => :a do
>       ...
>     end

I haven't done much with Rake yet, but fortunately I knew that => is
used to indicate that one task depends on another. I wonder how many
people who didn't know Rake would guess that.

> Or a well known (in the Haskell community) DSL in Haskell
> is Parsec; an example from the Haskell wiki:
>
>     parseInput = do
>         dirs <- many dirAndSize
>         eof
>         return dirs
>
>     data Dir = Dir {dir_size::Integer, dir_name::String} deriving Show
>
>     dirAndSize = do
>         size <- many1 digit
>         spaces
>         dir_name <- anyChar `manyTill` newline
>         return (Dir (read size) dir_name)

And this?  I don't know Haskell, but I thought if it's a good language
for creating DSLs then I'd at least have a good guess at what the code
does. Unfortunately I don't have a guess here. I think that's a bad
sign. Call me stupid if you'd like.

> Of course, Lisp is *the* language for DSL construction.

I'd like to see a DSL example in LISP.

> Python, and more so Java do not allow you to construct a DSL.
> Thus in Python and Java, on the syntax level you are always
> limited to the few constructs the language provides: Defining
> classes and methods, constructing objects, calling methods,
> arithmetic expressions, branches via if/else, switch/case.
> This gets more limiting the bigger a project grows. Java people
> compensate this via huge frameworks that interpret XML files.
>
> Ruby's design is also more coherent than Python's. One example
> where Python really f****d up are properties. Python's properties
> are an ugly mess, just IMO.
>
> If you already know Java/C#/C++, you'll gain much more in
> learning Ruby than Python.
>
> --
> Stefan

-- 
R. Mark Volkmann
Object Computing, Inc.