Comparison with Ruby ?

[Alex Martelli]

"Juergen Bocklage" <juergen.bocklage at gmx.net> wrote in message
news:3A94489D.5B65ED19 at gmx.net...
> Aehmmm, I'm just a beginner, but some remarks on the ruby-python
> comparision.
    [snip]
>      Python separates types and classes, while Ruby treats them the
> same. Python types are more limited (no
>      inheritance/subclassing; cannot add methods to existing types).
> JB> Don't know

A Ruby win here.


>      Ruby has a better (or "real") closure feature.
> JB> what does this mean

Nothing, actually.  Some people are SO keen on nested lexical
scopes, that they'll (mistakenly) argue that a closure is not
one unless it supports _nested_ lexical scopes.  Until 2.0,
Python's scopes don't nest, so, of course, they keep not
nesting in closures; at 2.1, they will (alas) nest, so, of
course, they'll keep nesting in closures.

>      Ruby converts small integers and long integers automatically.
> JB> Okay, nice for you

No way.  Explicit is better than implicit.  I'd rather NOT
have such 'automatic' (automagick) conversions anywhere!

>      Ruby does not have tuples.
> JB> Bad for Ruby. They are fast.

Disagree.  'Fast' should be handled by the compiler and runtime.
Tuples should be lists with an "immutable" setting (and there
should be similar "immutable" settings for dictionaries) but
otherwise indistinguishable.

>           def +(x)
>            self.to_i + x
>           end
>
> JB> I know this from C++, (Syntactical sugar or a good source for
> errors)

It's not more error-prone than using __add__ as the magic name
for overloading addition, which is why Python does.  Looks like
a total wash to me.

>      Ruby has a loop abstraction using block; e.g.
>
>           10.times do
>             ...
>           end
>
> JB> What's this?

A method 'times' on integer objects, that takes a code-block.


>      You can define your own arbitrary iterator.
> JB> Why?

To iterate arbitrarily.  Why else?

>      Ruby provides method combination using `super'.
> JB> this is a good feature, in python I think you have to use the name
> of parent class.

Disagree -- I _like_ it that the SPECIFIC parent-class you
mean has to be explicitly mentioned (multiple-inheritance,
remember).  I don't like the complex rules of Dylan to allow
magick implicitness in this, nor constraining inheritance to
single just to allow 'super' to work:-).


> Python is for me the language for beginners and designers.

Not just for them.  Lots of Hackers and eXtreme Programmers
are also pretty happy with it.


Alex