«

James Britt a écrit :
> bruno modulix wrote:
>
>> James Britt a écrit :
>> (snip)
>>
>>>
>>> Although the phrase has been glommed by Python fans, I believe it
>>> more appropriate to say that Ruby is almost like executable
>>> pseudo-code[*]. There is very little extraneous syntax to interfere
>>> with simply expressing what you want to do.
>>
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>>>[*] Show of hands: How many people write "__self__" as a routine
>>> part of of their pseudo code?
>>>
>>
>> Err... actually, it's 'self', not '__self__', and since it's pretty
>> common in OOPLs to have a 'self', 'this' or like keyword to refer to
>> the current instance in methods, I don't see where's the problem. Now,
>> how many people would write @attr instead of this.attr or self.attr in
>> their pseudocode ?-)
>
>
>
> Oh, quite right, but that's why I would say that Ruby is *almost* like
> pseudo code.
>
> My pseudo code tends to look like
>
> foo() {
> ...
> }

I don't write pseudo-code no more - I just write Python !-)

> No self, no def.
>

I always used qualified names in OO code, even with languages that don't
require it (C++, Java, VB - if VB qualifies as a language, but that's
another troll^M^M^M^M^Mquestion !-).

Bruno

Reimer Behrends a écrit :
> bruno modulix () wrote:
> [...]
>
>> IMHO, the biggets difference is that the 'main' influence (well... the
>> most obvious...) is C for Python and Smalltalk for Ruby (oh, and yes :
>> most pythonistas think of Perl as one of the most horrible thing in the
>> world !-)
>
>
> I very much doubt that C ever was a strong influence for Python's
> design;

"""
Actually, my initial goal for Python was to serve as a second language
for people who were C or C++ programmers, but who had work where writing
a C program was just not effective.
"""
http://www.artima.com/intv/pyscale.html

(snip)

Well... What I was thinking of was more a matter of paradigm and idioms
(err... not the right words neither - sorry, English is not my
mother's language) than a matter of syntax or data types.

<troll>
But for sure, Ruby is much more closer to Smalltalk (who said 'copycat'
?-) than Python is to C.
</troll>

Bruno

gabriele renzi a écrit :
> bruno modulix ha scritto:
>
>> The second part was already used 5 years ago when talking about Python...
>
>
> imo python's marketing word is 'readability' or 'simplicity', not fun.
> google agrees:
> "makes programming fun again" + ruby ->152 results
> fun+ruby -> 1.100.000
> "makes programming fun again" + py -> 63 results
> fun+python -> 630.000

Ok, let's play :
fun + ruby + programming -> 69 500
fun + python + programming -> 152 000

and on google.groups :
fun + ruby + programming -> 3 280
fun + python + programming -> 8 240

Well...

Jamis Buck a écrit :
> bruno modulix wrote:
>
>> Well... If I tell you "Highly dynamic, hi-level, interpreted, garbage
>> collected, file-based, strongly OO && mildly functional, clear syntax
>> and fun to use", it could apply to both languages.
>
>
> You're right, except that (IMO) Python is not strongly OO. That's my
> opinion.

A fact is a fact, whatever your opinion is. Please note that I didn't
(and wouldn't) say that Python is a 'pure' OOPl.

(ok, I agree that the last two points ("clear syntax and fun to use")
are more opinions than facts...)

bruno modulix wrote:
> gabriele renzi a écrit :
>
>> bruno modulix ha scritto:
>>
>>> The second part was already used 5 years ago when talking about
>>> Python...
>>
>>
>>
>> imo python's marketing word is 'readability' or 'simplicity', not fun.
>> google agrees:
>> "makes programming fun again" + ruby ->152 results
>> fun+ruby -> 1.100.000
>> "makes programming fun again" + py -> 63 results
>> fun+python -> 630.000
>
>
> Ok, let's play :
> fun + ruby + programming -> 69 500
> fun + python + programming -> 152 000
>
> and on google.groups :
> fun + ruby + programming -> 3 280
> fun + python + programming -> 8 240

Since we're googling:

bruno + python + fan -> 2320
jamis + ruby + fan -> 86

Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
people named jamis that like ruby. So...what did that just prove, again?

The point is that you can find google search terms to prove anything you
want by number of hits.

The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
everyone. That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
Python is most definately not.

(bruno--hope I didn't step on your toes with the google example above.
It was meant in fun, not in spite.)

- Jamis

--
Jamis Buck

http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis

On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:18:46AM +0900, bruno modulix wrote:
> Well... What I was thinking of was more a matter of paradigm and idioms
> (err... not the right words neither - sorry, English is not my
> mother's language) than a matter of syntax or data types.
>
> <troll>
> But for sure, Ruby is much more closer to Smalltalk (who said 'copycat'
> ?-) than Python is to C.
> </troll>

Hardly trollish at all... a well-known Rubyist once said that it's a
cheap "Smalltalk ripoff"...

--
Hassle-free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyarchive.org/

Jamis Buck wrote:

> Since we're googling:
>
> bruno + python + fan -> 2320
> jamis + ruby + fan -> 86
>
> Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
> people named jamis that like ruby. So...what did that just prove, again?
>
> The point is that you can find google search terms to prove anything you
> want by number of hits.

I think of Ruby as programming Viagra, and this thread prompted me to
search on [language] programming Viagra

Results:
Ruby 1,570
Python 18,000

Well, I was curious just what prompted people to mention Viagra so
often, so I scoped out some sites.

Well, the obvious then struck me:
Python sites have a *serious* issue with comment spam.


>
> The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
> see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
> perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
> everyone. That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
> Python is most definately not.

I was going to describe the effects Ruby can have on people, a la
Viagra, but I've decided not to.

Wood not be appropriate.
People might have a bone to pick.
There'd be some stiff reactions, and I don't want this to be hard on anyone.



James

James Britt ha scritto:

> Well, the obvious then struck me:
> Python sites have a *serious* issue with comment spam.

given that we're in a fractal OT expansion, let me notice that
rubygarden seem still to get lot of spam.. but this morning I found at
least ten pages without it

Jamis Buck a écrit :
> bruno modulix wrote:
>
>> gabriele renzi a écrit :
>>
>>> bruno modulix ha scritto:
>>>
>>>> The second part was already used 5 years ago when talking about
>>>> Python...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> imo python's marketing word is 'readability' or 'simplicity', not fun.
>>> google agrees:
>>> "makes programming fun again" + ruby ->152 results
>>> fun+ruby -> 1.100.000
>>> "makes programming fun again" + py -> 63 results
>>> fun+python -> 630.000
>>
>>
>>
>> Ok, let's play :
>> fun + ruby + programming -> 69 500
>> fun + python + programming -> 152 000
>>
>> and on google.groups :
>> fun + ruby + programming -> 3 280
>> fun + python + programming -> 8 240
>
>
> Since we're googling:
>
> bruno + python + fan -> 2320
> jamis + ruby + fan -> 86
>
> Thus, there are more people named bruno that like python then there are
> people named jamis that like ruby.

Great ! Well done ! Nice job, boy !-)

> So...what did that just prove, again?

The power of google stats ?-)

>
> The point, also, is that if Python floats your boat, cool. I, for one,
> see neither Python nor Ruby ever replacing the other. Python is not a
> perfect fit for every programmer, and neither is Ruby a perfect fit for
> everyone.

<aol>

> That said, Ruby IS a very near-perfect fit for me, whereas
> Python is most definately not.
>
> (bruno--hope I didn't step on your toes with the google example above.
> It was meant in fun, not in spite.)

No problemo !-)

Bruno

Mauricio Fernández a écrit :
> On Thu, Nov 04, 2004 at 07:18:46AM +0900, bruno modulix wrote:
>
>>Well... What I was thinking of was more a matter of paradigm and idioms
>> (err... not the right words neither - sorry, English is not my
>>mother's language) than a matter of syntax or data types.
>>
>><troll>
>>But for sure, Ruby is much more closer to Smalltalk (who said 'copycat'
>>?-) than Python is to C.
>></troll>
>
>
> Hardly trollish at all... a well-known Rubyist once said that it's a
> cheap "Smalltalk ripoff"...
>
Ok, so just remove the <troll> tags !-)