What's better about Ruby than Python?

[A. Lloyd Flanagan]

Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote in message news:<p0S0b.21638$zN5.670091 at news1.tin.it>...
> John J. Lee wrote:
> 
> > Nick Vargish <nav+posts at bandersnatch.org> writes:
> > 
> > I do wonder if the tight constraint on C++ of being C+extra bits was
> > ever really justified.
> 
> I think it was: it allowed C++ to enter into MANY places that just
> wouldn't have given it a thought otherwise, and to popularize OO
> in this -- albeit indirect -- way.
> 
> 
> Alex

You're right.  The characterization of C++ as a "better C" got it into
a lot of places.  It also, unfortunately, resulted in a huge amount of
C++ code full of C idioms and procedural thinking.

So management thinks they're doing object-oriented programming because
they are using an object-oriented language.  But the problems of C
become even worse when you do C++ wrong.  The result:  people end up
thinking this whole 'object-oriented' thing is a bunch of hooey.

Don't get me wrong:  you can do great things with C++ if you're an
expert.  Problem is, if you're not, you can do tremendous damage.