Ruby Impressions

[Edward Diener]

Luigi Ballabio wrote:

> At 08:28 AM 1/11/02 +0000, Phil Tomson wrote:
> 
>> >C++ & Java guru Bruce Eckel has done a Python/Ruby compairison. You 
>> can read
>> >it at http://www.mindview.net/Etc/FAQ.html#Ruby
>>
>> Eckel says:
>>
>> "So far I keep coming to the conclusion that
>> Ruby is just a bad ripoff of Python"
> 
> 
> If I were to try and reproduce idiomatic Italian expressions in English 
> by translating word by word, I would naturally come to the conclusion 
> that English is a bad ripoff of Italian (which might be partly true if 
> one takes Latin into account, but I won't enter into that---I don't have 
> a flame-proof jacket nearby :)


English grew out of an early Germanic variant called HochDeutsch, or so 
I was taught many years ago in high school. Perhaps a linguist can 
correct me if I am wrong. Of course there are English words which come 
from Latin but the main linguistic elements come from this early German.

However I agree with the gist of your comment entirely, which is that 
each language has its idiosyncrasies and its subleties, and should be 
regarded in that light.


> 
> The same would happen if Bruce tried to write Ruby programs in a 
> Pythonic way.
> He would be uncomfortable and less productive---of course. Python is a 
> better language for writing Pythonic idioms. As far as I recognize them, 
> Ruby idioms took from Perl and Smalltalk instead. Apples and oranges 
> come to mind :)
> 
> Mostly-a-matter-of-taste-in-my-opinion-ly yours,


I agree. While Ruby has more regular object-oriented syntax than Python, 
the Perl-like flavor of some of Ruby's language decisions make me much 
more comfortable with Python, irregardless of which language is 
considered technically easier to use or more elegant in its constructs.


>                                                         Luigi
> 
>