A concise description of Ruby?

[bruno modulix]

James Britt a écrit :

James Britt a écrit :
(snip)

Although the phrase has been glommed by Python fans, I believe it
more appropriate to say that Ruby is almost like executable
pseudo-code[*]. There is very little extraneous syntax to interfere
with simply expressing what you want to do.

(snip)

[*] Show of hands: How many people write "__self__" as a routine
part of of their pseudo code?

Err... actually, it's 'self', not '__self__', and since it's pretty
common in OOPLs to have a 'self', 'this' or like keyword to refer to
the current instance in methods, I don't see where's the problem. Now,
how many people would write @attr instead of this.attr or self.attr in
their pseudocode ?-)

Oh, quite right, but that's why I would say that Ruby is *almost* like
pseudo code.

My pseudo code tends to look like

foo() {
...
}

I don't write pseudo-code no more - I just write Python !-)

No self, no def.

I always used qualified names in OO code, even with languages that don't
require it (C++, Java, VB - if VB qualifies as a language, but that's
another troll^M^M^M^M^Mquestion !-).

Bruno

 

[bruno modulix]

Reimer Behrends a écrit :

bruno modulix ([email protected]) wrote:
[...]

IMHO, the biggets difference is that the 'main' influence (well... the
most obvious...) is C for Python and Smalltalk for Ruby (oh, and yes :
most pythonistas think of Perl as one of the most horrible thing in the
world !-)

I very much doubt that C ever was a strong influence for Python's
design;

"""
Actually, my initial goal for Python was to serve as a second language
for people who were C or C++ programmers, but who had work where writing
a C program was just not effective.
"""
http://www.artima.com/intv/pyscale.html

(snip)

Well... What I was thinking of was more a matter of paradigm and idioms
(err... not the right words neither - sorry, English is not my
mother's language) than a matter of syntax or data types.

<troll>
But for sure, Ruby is much more closer to Smalltalk (who said 'copycat'
?-) than Python is to C.
</troll>

Bruno

 

[bruno modulix]

gabriele renzi a écrit :

bruno modulix ha scritto:



imo python's marketing word is 'readability' or 'simplicity', not fun.
google agrees:
"makes programming fun again" + ruby ->152 results
fun+ruby -> 1.100.000
"makes programming fun again" + py -> 63 results
fun+python -> 630.000

Ok, let's play :
fun + ruby + programming -> 69 500
fun + python + programming -> 152 000

and on google.groups :
fun + ruby + programming -> 3 280
fun + python + programming -> 8 240

Well...

 

[bruno modulix]

Jamis Buck a écrit :

You're right, except that (IMO) Python is not strongly OO. That's my
opinion.

A fact is a fact, whatever your opinion is. Please note that I didn't
(and wouldn't) say that Python is a 'pure' OOPl.

(ok, I agree that the last two points ("clear syntax and fun to use")
are more opinions than facts...)

 

[Jamis Buck]

gabriele renzi a écrit :



Ok, let's play :
fun + ruby + programming -> 69 500
fun + python + programming -> 152 000

and on google.groups :
fun + ruby + programming -> 3 280
fun + python + programming -> 8 240

Since we're googling:

bruno + python + fan -> 2320
jamis + ruby + fan -> 86

Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
people named jamis that like ruby. So...what did that just prove, again?

The point is that you can find google search terms to prove anything you
want by number of hits.

The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
everyone. That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
Python is most definately not.

(bruno--hope I didn't step on your toes with the google example above.
It was meant in fun, not in spite.)

- Jamis

 

[Mauricio Fernández]

Well... What I was thinking of was more a matter of paradigm and idioms
(err... not the right words neither - sorry, English is not my
mother's language) than a matter of syntax or data types.

<troll>
But for sure, Ruby is much more closer to Smalltalk (who said 'copycat'
?-) than Python is to C.
</troll>

Hardly trollish at all... a well-known Rubyist once said that it's a
cheap "Smalltalk ripoff"...

 

[James Britt]

Since we're googling:

bruno + python + fan -> 2320
jamis + ruby + fan -> 86

Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
people named jamis that like ruby. So...what did that just prove, again?

The point is that you can find google search terms to prove anything you
want by number of hits.

I think of Ruby as programming Viagra, and this thread prompted me to
search on [language] programming Viagra

Results:
Ruby 1,570
Python 18,000

Well, I was curious just what prompted people to mention Viagra so
often, so I scoped out some sites.

Well, the obvious then struck me:
Python sites have a *serious* issue with comment spam.

The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
everyone. That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
Python is most definately not.

I was going to describe the effects Ruby can have on people, a la
Viagra, but I've decided not to.

Wood not be appropriate.
People might have a bone to pick.
There'd be some stiff reactions, and I don't want this to be hard on anyone.



James

 

[gabriele renzi]

James Britt ha scritto:

Well, the obvious then struck me:
Python sites have a *serious* issue with comment spam.

given that we're in a fractal OT expansion, let me notice that
rubygarden seem still to get lot of spam.. but this morning I found at
least ten pages without it

 

[bruno modulix]

Jamis Buck a écrit :

Since we're googling:

bruno + python + fan -> 2320
jamis + ruby + fan -> 86

Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
people named jamis that like ruby.

Great ! Well done ! Nice job, boy !-)

So...what did that just prove, again?

The power of google stats ?-)

The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
everyone.

That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
Python is most definately not.

(bruno--hope I didn't step on your toes with the google example above.
It was meant in fun, not in spite.)

No problemo !-)

Bruno

 

[bruno modulix]

Mauricio Fernández a écrit :

Hardly trollish at all... a well-known Rubyist once said that it's a
cheap "Smalltalk ripoff"...

Ok, so just remove the <troll> tags !-)