From: Joe Mason <joe@...>
Date: 2004-01-22T19:50:12+09:00
Subject: Re: New to Python: my impression v. Perl/Ruby

In article <20040121155809.22006.00000323@mb-m22.aol.com>, GGarramuno wrote:
> 
> for i in (0..i); something; end
> 
> to me has a bunch of advantages over times, step and the such.  With the above
> construct you know that:
> a) i has to be a number
> b) i has to be positive for the loop to run
> c) there IS a loop after all, as 'for' indicates a loop in pretty much every
> computer language.
> d) it is more efficient as no blocks are created.
> e) you can change the starting point (ie. not start at 0).
> 
> 
> With i.times() I really don't get any of the above.  One can asume that i.times
> means a loop as it is perhaps a common construct in ruby. 
> But the truth is that i.times() also leaves room for that behavior to not be
> true.  It could mean something else, too.  It could be a fancy benchmarking
> object measuring the following block.  Or any object with a times() method, for
> that matter. 
> Pre-assuming it is a loop to me is not as obvious as with a for loop.
> And you always get the performance hit of opening a block, which is a big no-no
> to me when speed matters.

So, what you're saying is, you don't want to use Ruby's features because
the same names could be used in other ways.

That's a fair reason to not use Ruby, I suppose.  Feel free not to.  But
you're not going to convince anyone else with that argument.

Joe