What's better about Ruby than Python?

[Kenny Tilton]

Terry Reedy wrote:
> "Mario S. Mommer" <m_mommer at yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:fzoeyihycs.fsf at cupid.igpm.rwth-aachen.de...
> 
>>Lisp is simple.
>>
>>(<operator> <item-1> <item-2> ...)
>>
>>Where's the problem?
> 
> 
> The very uniformity of everything (including operators?) being a
> possibly recursive list and the actual practice of relatively deep
> (compared to Python and similar languages) nesting.  If a lisp
> expression ends with 10 to 20 closing parentheses (which I have seen),

Not often, I hope. Then again, I for one hate too much code in one 
function or even too much code in one source file! So I break things up 
a lot. Funny thing is, I do not end up with a lot of functions for 
functions' sake, things just tend to be reusable.

This one is really personal taste. I think I have a very low tolerance 
for lotsa code in one place.

OTOH, lotsa closing parens means highly functional code. That is very 
good for code quality.

kenny