From: Sean Russell <ser@...>
Date: 2002-02-22T01:38:48+09:00
Subject: RE: FAQ comp.lang.ruby; correction, Ruby vs Python 2.2

James Britt (ruby xml) wrote:

> I second this.  No matter how you phrase it, certain comparisons (pretty
> much anything
> using words like "more" or  "better") are prone to misunderstanding.  If
> there really is a need to state how Ruby stacks up against other languages
> then it should be expressed using concrete, impartial details, allowing
> the reader to make an informed judgment.

Hear, hear.

Comparisons have no place in the FAQ.  However, a comparison document is 
absolutely neccessary.  Language descriptions are really tedious reads; 
what is most useful is comparison to something people are familiar with, so 
they have some context to work with.  Comparison documents are also good 
for describing /why/ a potential user might want to try something as 
opposed to something else, and highlights the deficiencies in other systems 
that are trying to be made up for.

I'd also say that it is useful to air deficiencies in Ruby, as much as 
possible, in the comparison document as well.  It (a) helps defuse 
criticism from other sectors, and (b) makes the comparison document appear 
more objective.

--- SER