Guys, this isn't a good path to follow. Bruce has been an asset to the entire software community for years. I don't agree with everything he says -- I don't know if anybody does, and I don't know that that isn't exactly as he wants it -- but whatever he says *is* his opinion and not some ploy. Furthermore, he is fundamentally on our side... just maybe not in the details... yet.
Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python programmer to switch?
Cheers,
Bob
···
On Dec 20, 2005, at 5:12 PM, Timothy Hunter wrote:
Ryan Leavengood wrote:
I think the problem he has (like many other Pythonistas, Javans,
Perlists, etc.) is that Ruby is getting a lot of exposure now thanks
to Rails, and he feels his livelihood might be threatened by what he
perceives as simply a fad.
You nailed it, Ryan. This has little (if anything) to do with which-language-is-better, and everything to do with earning a living. Mr. Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts his income.
Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and
Hebrew "wrong" because they aren't?
Yes?
nikolai (who wants to debate the merits of top-to-bottom
writing
as well)
actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
right, one line down then go left and so on
I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA( ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?) Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
.yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti
More information at:
lmth.nodehportsuob/B/lmth/nograj/rse~/gro.btac.www//:ptth
And like I said in the bit that was snipped, if more CS students
were taught to indent correctly, I probably wouldn't be so
opinionated on this matter.
Cheers!
Tim Hammerquist
···
Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> wrote:
Tim Hammerquist wrote:
> There are two things that I think python got absolutely
> *right*: One is Python's ternary expressions ("if
> 0 < x < 10:"), which have functional equivalents in Ruby.
> The other is significant whitespace.
Glad ya think so. I find it obnoxious, and it contributes to
an appearance to the source that makes my eyes bleed. It
detracts from visual symmetry and makes everything look
unfinished to me.
That's just me, though -- just like your impression that it's
"right" is just you.
Disagree. The type of people that pay his lecturing fees will always be willing to pay for lectures regardless of language. There are plenty of people lecturing on the VB circuit.
If anything I'd go the opposite - it provides him with a potentially larger army of potential attendees at such conferences, especially if Ruby goes mainstream.
Funny, I read the article Hal referred to this morning and then found this thread later today. I felt the article kind of didn't say much other than "there is no reason to change to Ruby if you already know Python".
As part of our software tool beta tests we talk with software engineers that use a variety of languages. I was chatting with a very keen beta tester of a Python flow tracer product and asked if he had tried Ruby as I preferred it to Python. His answer was that he didn't have the time (professionally) or time and energy in his private life (father, husband, etc) to learn Ruby for fun. It would need to be for a commercial reason and he had none. I guess many in the Python camp won't change language unless they have a business reason to change.
Stephen
···
In message <Vh%pf.873$Or5.754@tornado.southeast.rr.com>, Timothy Hunter <cyclists@nc.rr.com> writes
Just a thought: a programming language that is free, easy to learn, rewards mastery, and has flocks of eager devotees who want to share their knowledge for free offers little incentive to a guy who needs to earn a living writing and lecturing and teaching and consulting.
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/software.html
Computer Consultancy, Software Development
Windows C++, Java, Assembler, Performance Analysis, Troubleshooting
Python is "different" ... it implements objects, has a number of nice
reflection things, dynamic binding, and more ...
It's got it's own syntax ... and that hasn't changed ... they do things
their way ( again "different" ).
... beyond that, the real differences were already listed off in a VERY good
post ...
To me ( and yes I've used both and built real tools with both ) ... the main
difference that works the way I think is that ruby has blocks ...
Python has lambdas, but they don't compare... that to me is the big
difference... everything else is sugar/fluff.
If you think the python way , then everything is happy in Python ville.
If you think the ruby way, then rubyopolis is your happy place...
That's all the end ... at least they are BOTH taking away from the Perl
community & the other static/compiled languages out there ...
... I respect them for being who they are and building a tool that has made
an impact on the community ( RedHat's install tool, OpenOffice using it as a
macro language, etc. )....
... Ruby will eventually win it's larger battles too. The reason we haven't
is because we are all happy enough with our choice to use Ruby that we are
just getting our work done, not fighting wars.
Mr. Eckel makes a good living teaching Java and writing about Java and
consulting about Java and the adoption of anything other than Java hurts
his income.
Mr. Eckel has written books and articles on C++, Java and Python. In fact, from what I can tell, he rather prefers Python over Java. So I don't think his livelyhood is in any danger if Java suddenly becomes unpopular.
With all due respect, Jim, I think it would be a mistake to overlook Mr. Eckel's pecuniary interests in this debate. I was at Barnes & Noble just this afternoon and I didn't see his name on any books about Ruby.
Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.
Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.
The pecuniary interests question is raised only because the first
commenter on Mr Eckel's article raised it about Mr Tate. Neither is a
legitimate question here and maligns everyone involved.
-austin
···
On 20/12/05, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
programmer to switch?
I think that if you think Bruce Eckel is threatened by Ruby then you
need to read about Bruce Eckel. He is only asking "why".
I didn't say he was threatened. But I think "why" is ultimately a
matter of taste.
Right, but Eckel seemed to be suggesting that one must use a much more
objective, almost scientific method for lanauge selection (and implied that
Tate relied too much on 'preference'). In doing so he seemed to imply that
people who had chosen Python had gone through this objective, scientific
process while those who were headed in the direction of Ruby had not.
It doesn't seem mysterious to me that different languages appeal to
different people.
Agreed, however, it seems that for many years now that there have been some
doubts about whether there is room for two (seemingly similar)open source,
dynamic, OO languages which largely appeal to the same developer base.
This may actually be at the root of the animosity between the two camps:
perhaps we each have a sneaking suspicion that if we could get the good
developers from the other camp to come to ours we would be able to get a lot
further (in development of libraries, docs, VMs etc.). A couple of years ago
Ruby was the underdog, but now in terms of mindshare I think Ruby and Python are
close to parity. If the momentum continues then Ruby 'mindshare' could
outpace Python mindshare and perhaps begin to attract Python developers. That
may be seen as worrisome to some in the Python camp including Eckel. The
underlying message (reading between the lines) of some of Eckel's comments
about Ruby seems to be a message for the Python faithful to remain in the
fold.
While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between the two
groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for resources where
resources in this case are developers.
> Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:
>> Hal Fulton wrote:
>>
>>>Most (human) languages are written left to right. Are Arabic and
>>>Hebrew "wrong" because they aren't?
>> Yes?
>> nikolai (who wants to debate the merits of top-to-bottom
>> writing
>> as well)
>
> actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
> english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
> right, one line down then go left and so on
I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA( ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?) Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
.yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti
The tactile writing system known as Moon was designed to work like
that. It had guide lines like giant parentheses joining line ends
to show you the flow. RNIB removed this feature because they wanted
it to be more like print. Moon is more bulky than braille, but this
was one really good feature in its favour.
More information at:
lmth.nodehportsuob/B/lmth/nograj/rse~/gro.btac.www//:ptth
--
Christian Neukirchen <chneukirchen@gmail.com> http://chneukirchen.org
> Nikolai Weibull ha scritto:
>
> actually, I still think bustrofedic, or whatever it is spelled in
> english, still is the best writing system ever. Start top left then go
> right, one line down then go left and so on
I don't think the idea is as clever as you think, for example, how can
dnA( ?asrev-eciv ro thgir-ot-tfel morf daer ot deen uoy fi tceted uoy
how will the computer?) Actually, I can't see of a good reason to do
.yllaunam etirw uoy fi ssel dnah ruoy gnivom naht rehto ti
At one level I understand this point of view. But at the same time, how
difficult is it to read a book? If your professional and personal life is
so busy that you can't find time to read a book or to learn about a new
topic then I think your priorities need to be re-evaluated. I'm not saying
that learning Ruby should be on the top of everyone's todo list but I do
think it is important to regularly expose yourself to new ideas for both
your personal and professional health.
Gary Wright
···
On Dec 23, 2005, at 8:32 AM, Stephen Kellett wrote:
His answer was that he didn't have the time (professionally) or time and energy in his private life (father, husband, etc) to learn Ruby for fun. It would need to be for a commercial reason and he had none. I guess many in the Python camp won't change language unless they have a business reason to change.
> Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
> question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
> Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
> programmer to switch?
Bob:
Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.
If you read that article a little carefully, Bruce Eckel is mad about
Bruce Tate ignoring Python in "Beyond Java". And he has a point. Python
has been a good alternative to Java for years. And it still is.
And in my oppinion Bruce Eckel could be more valuable asset to the Ruby
community that Bruce Tate, since Bruce Tate is just spreading FUD to
sell books in my oppinion, but still ... doesn't have time to
investigate Python which is THE traditional alternative to Java.
I really hope Bruce Eckel changes his mind and releases a "Thinking in
Ruby" book.
That would be awesome.
···
On 20/12/05, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
With all due respect, Jim, I think it would be a mistake to overlook Mr.
Eckel's pecuniary interests in this debate. I was at Barnes & Noble just
this afternoon and I didn't see his name on any books about Ruby.
It would indeed be a mistake to overlook it, but I don't see the facts
supporting the conclusion.
Mr. Eckel is a strong critic of Java, particularly in the area of
checked exceptions and generics. Back when I was actually teaching Java
(6 or so years ago), his book "Thinking in Java" was one the few books
that was able to present the language without being "gushy" about it.
He frequently pointed out warts in the language. He is also an advocate
of dynamic typing over static typing and written several good articles
supporting that position. And finally, he a big fan and advocate of
Python, one of those "free, easy to learn, rewards mastery, and has
flocks of eager devotees who want to share their knowledge for free"
languages.
In short, to accuse him of being short sighted with respect to other
languages because he has a vested interest in teaching Java needs to
ignore the fact that he never been slow to critisize Java in the past
when he sees problems.
And finally, his blog entry is less about supporting Java, and more
asking the question of why Ruby over Python.
I think its simply a matter that he prefers the "Zen of Python" over the
"Ruby Way" ... a position held by many people.
In article <9e7db9110512201553t1355cb4ah@mail.gmail.com>,
Lose the hostility and read his article again. He is asking a fair
question. Why *would* a programmer already into Python switch to
Ruby? My question is does it matter if we can or cannot get a Python
programmer to switch?
Bob:
Mr Eckel is not merely asking the question. He is asking the question
in perhaps as hostile a way as he can without saying that Rubyists are
poopyheads.
Frankly, I don't *want* Mr Eckel to become a Ruby programmer (and say
so on the blog entry I linked to earlier); he's likely to find all
sorts of "flaws" that are in fact features that I *love* about Ruby.
Similarly, a lot of the "features" he finds in Python I consider
flaws. He won't be happy in Ruby, so he shouldn't use it.
Oh, now that's going a bit over the top don't you think? I would think that
we should actually encourage Mr. Eckel to try out Ruby. We should welcome him
to instead of hanging out a sign that says "No Eckel's allowed!". Afterall,
we're the friendly language newsgroup. If Mr. Eckel comes here with questions
I would hope that we would welcome him and answer them courteously (and no
"see I told you so" type responses either).
Better to win friends than to make enemies.
Phil
···
Austin Ziegler <halostatue@gmail.com> wrote:
On 20/12/05, Bob Hutchison <hutch@recursive.ca> wrote:
While on the surface there seems to be a religious conflict between the two
groups, perhaps what's really going on is a competition for resources where
resources in this case are developers.
This is an interesting point that deserves some consideration. This has more than once crossed my mind.
I've got a few thoughts on this but can't quite express them intelligibly yet. I suspect some of you will have no problems at all
