Re: [tlug] ruby and python in Japan

["Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@??>]

Zev Blut writes:

 > On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 13:33:17 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull  
 > <stephen@??> wrote:
 > 
 > > Zev Blut writes:
 > >
 > >  > Well, this is not restrictive but an annoying aspect is that you must
 > >  > explicitly declare self in all of your instance methods.  It makes the
 > >  > OO aspect of Python feel tacked on.
 > >
 > > Ah, you haven't drunk the Kool-Aid.  This is an instance of "explicit
 > > is better than implicit."  I think you should check your mental model
 > > of OO.  I'm not saying that your annoyance is unwarranted---whatever
 > > makes you more productive works for me.  My point is that OO and
 > > implicit arguments are independent constructs.
 > 
 > I am sorry but I must disagree, this simply reeks of an implementation
 > detail.

Well, that's exactly *my* point.  It's not that this couldn't have
been added (subtracted?) to the language, it was a deliberate choice.

 > Anyway, I don't want to get into a language war

That's not the point.  Note that the statement I made is completely
independent of the Ruby v. Python context.

Anyway, I'm not arguing from information, I'm asking from ignorance.
I'd like to know something about Ruby before I invest time in it.  As
you say, Haskell is attractive because it's very different.  Ruby is
only interesting to me if (a) I need to hack an existing Ruby
application (I don't yet) or (b) Ruby has genuine advantages over
Python.  You claim that (b) is the case:

 > so I will end it with this.  I think Ruby and Python have a number
 > of similar attributes, but that Ruby has a significantly stronger
 > OO model and other

But where is it "stronger"?  What is it that Ruby's model makes
possible, or at least significantly easier and less fragile than in
Python's?

 > techniques like blocks and lambdas that make it a bit strong than
 > Python.

Python *has* lambdas; it just doesn't have anonymous ones (I don't
consider the toy "one-line lambda" a real lambda).  Python's functions
are first class objects; they can be assigned and queried, you can use
them to build closures, and you can define local functions (as
contrasted with methods).  Again, this seems to be a minor case of
syntactic sugar to me.

Blocks are another matter.  I don't really understand blocks; what are
they good for?

 > I have looked at Python, but since I know Ruby I do not find
 > it compelling to learn unless I am going to be paid to do it.

Sure; that seems to be everybody's conclusion in both directions.
These languages are close substitutes, much closer than Perl or Lisp
for either.