From: Andrew Hunt <andy@...>
Date: 2000-03-24T15:57:47-05:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:02146] Re: Scripting and OO -- thought question

    Dat Nguyen writes:

    >Many things said above would also be true when replacing 'Ruby' with 
    >'Python'.

Sure, but Python fails on the "convenient" count.  I, for one,
do not care for it's handling of tabs, the __vars__ all over,
and the general feel (as with Perl) that OO was welded-on in a somewhat
bruce force manner.

But yes, Python does aim for a similar space.

    >For those subjects like chess whose solutions already widely researched, the 
    >implementors can afford to do it in a "low" High Level language like C or 
    >C++ for performance reason.

Only if the particular solution they are pursuing is in fact well-researched,
even on problem domains that have been mined extensively there are
still questions that need pursuing.

    >For problems whose solutions are still vague and performance issues can be 
    >postponed, it's more effective and economic to do it in a "high" High Level 
    >language like Ruby (or Python). With Ruby (or Python) one can focus on 
    >finding the solution rather than debugging a memory leak.

That's what Dave was saying in his post.  But again, the
difference to me is that Python still distracts the user with
too many non-OO, kludgy ways of doing things.

I think Ruby wins as being the most convenient, least obtrusive
solution.

/\ndy