What's TOTALLY COMPELLING about Ruby over Python?

[Peter Hansen]

John Roth wrote:
> 
> "Peter Hansen" <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
> > What is it about code blocks that would let "save *me* a buttload of work
> > and make *my* life sooooo much easier"?
> 
> It's not so much code blocks. It's that Ruby's syntax  gives you one code
> block for
> free in every method call. And the Ruby library is organized so that the
> facility
> is useful, which Python's isn't (or at least, it isn't as useful.)
> 
> All of the Ruby collections implement a .each method, which is essentially
> a version of the Visitor pattern. If I want to do something to every element
> in a list or a dict (or any kind of collection,) all I have to do is say
> something
> like (using Python syntax):
> 
> collectObj.each(<method name>)
> 
> In Python, that's either a lambda (which restricts what you can do with it,)
> or a named function (which is overkill a huge amount of the time.) And you
> have to worry about distinctions between functions and methods. In other
> words, it's a mess compared to Ruby.
> 
> Now, you can say: "We've got that with map()." Well, we've got it when
> your inputs are either lists (or implement the correct protocol) but the
> result is a list, it's not an internal modification to the object's state.
> 
> You can also say: we can do that with for. Well, duh. For is a
> statement, not a method call.

So what you seem to be saying is that Ruby has some features which 
in some cases can save some time or somewhat simplify code that when
written in Python would take slightly longer or be slightly more 
complicated.  (This probably underemphasizes the value you place on
such a thing, but I think that's the gist of it.)

While I do acknowledge that Python is often touted as a great solution
over other languages just because it saves time and simplifies the 
resulting solutions, I'm not clear on why these few small differences
would amount to a *TOTALLY COMPELLING* reason, to anyone, to use Ruby
over Python.

-Peter