From: seth@...
Date: 2004-03-30T07:52:50+09:00
Subject: Re: General observations

My take on this is slightly different.

I don't believe that the difference in libraries is a great as it
sometimes appears to be.  I believe that the biggest deficit is in
documentation.  The documentation lags the libraries, and frequently by a
significant amount.  This of course makes it difficult to use the
libraries.  Furthermore, it makes it difficult to discover what libraries
are actually available.

The improvements Greg sites are real and important.  I do think that more
stress on _up to date_ documentation would be a great leap forward in
terms of acceptance of Ruby as a serious competitor.

Seth Kurtzberg

> Greg Brondo wrote:
>
>> I've used Python on many a project but now am moving to Ruby more and
>> more.
>> I've noticed a few things that still bug me about Ruby however:
>>
>> 1) Python has more 3rd party modules for it (pdf, graphics, etc).
>>
>> 2) It seems the developers of the above 3rd party modules seem more
>>    interested in completing (as in mature) their work than their Ruby
>>    counterparts.
>>
>> To me it *seems* that as I look for libraries for Ruby (to use in a
>> production environment) I'm at a loss;  Most of the libraries I would
>> use
>> are either Alpha quality or appear abandon (pdf being an example).
>
>
> I'm not that familiar with the state of Python, but I've heard these
> claims before,and I'll assume they're true.  It's been discussed on
> ruby-talk before, so there is at least acknowledgment here that,
> compared to some other languages, Ruby's set of available, robust
> 3rd-party libs could do better.
>
> I also believe that progress is being made; the creation of RubyForge
> (and perhaps enhancements to the RAA), for example, should make it
> easier for people to locate existing projects and (ideally) helping out
> before starting Yet Another Version of Something or Other.
>
>>
>> On the positive side for Ruby it does seem to use less resources during
>> runtime compared to Python (webrick being an example).
>
> There are other advantages, as well, not the least being Ruby's
> programmer friendliness.  Depending on the project at hand, people may
> have to decide if the language itself or the set of 3rd party libs
> should be the deciding factor.  Over time, of course, this will change
> and Ruby will offer as good or better a choice of libs as any other
> language, so the choice will be a no-brainer.
>
> There is also work being done on language bridges, such that one can
> call Java(tm) or .Net code from Ruby, effectively extending the range of
> libs one could call from core Ruby code.  Plus work is (I think) being
> done so that Ruby can play well with Parrot (http://www.parrotcode.org/)
>
> James Britt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:4068a4a2223471493910419!
>
>
>