From: raims@... (Lawrence Oluyede)
Date: 2007-03-10T21:15:05+09:00
Subject: Re: A couple of questions from a Ruby neophyte

Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
> If you've ever noticed the way OOP characteristics look bolted-on in
> Perl, you might understand how regex support looks bolted-on in Python.
> For one thing, regex support is provided only through a library, rather
> than as part of the core language -- in other words, it really *is*
> bolted on.

That's maybe a deficiency in language design but I don't think the
Python's regex support is worse because of that. The 're' module
<http://docs.python.org/lib/module-re.html> is very comprehensive and
it's object oriented. The matching objects are _objects_ indeed. Ruby
does have regexp support builtin but hey, there must be some differences
between the languages or we won't be here to talk about those :-)

> It's better than Java's regex support.  In fact, it may be in the top
> half-dozen languages for regex support, but after extensive use of
> Perl's it feels half-baked.  So far (which isn't too far yet), Ruby's
> regex support is a very close second to Perl's, in my opinion.  In fact,
> there are a couple things I think Ruby does better.

Never been a Perlista so I can't really judge but I do like the builtin
Ruby support for regexp and I don't dislike the Python's one (being
mostly a Pythonista myself) so I guess I'm caught up in the middle.

> You might want to judge Ruby syntax on something other than a
> demonstration of irb.

I agree. My first taste of Ruby syntax was not really that good but
after a couple of more bites I really enjoyed the meal and there are
cases where I find Ruby to cleaner than Python.


-- 
Lawrence, oluyede.org - neropercaso.it
"It is difficult to get a man to understand 
something when his salary depends on not
understanding it" - Upton Sinclair