I’ve used Python on many a project but now am moving to Ruby more and more.
I’ve noticed a few things that still bug me about Ruby however:
-
Python has more 3rd party modules for it (pdf, graphics, etc).
-
It seems the developers of the above 3rd party modules seem more
interested in completing (as in mature) their work than their Ruby
counterparts.
To me it seems that as I look for libraries for Ruby (to use in a
production environment) I’m at a loss; Most of the libraries I would use
are either Alpha quality or appear abandon (pdf being an example).
On the positive side for Ruby it does seem to use less resources during
runtime compared to Python (webrick being an example).
Any comments (positive, no flames please) would be gladly accepted.
Thanks!
Greg B.
Greg Brondo wrote:
I’ve used Python on many a project but now am moving to Ruby more and more.
I’ve noticed a few things that still bug me about Ruby however:
-
Python has more 3rd party modules for it (pdf, graphics, etc).
-
It seems the developers of the above 3rd party modules seem more
interested in completing (as in mature) their work than their Ruby
counterparts.
To me it seems that as I look for libraries for Ruby (to use in a
production environment) I’m at a loss; Most of the libraries I would use
are either Alpha quality or appear abandon (pdf being an example).
I’m not that familiar with the state of Python, but I’ve heard these
claims before,and I’ll assume they’re true. It’s been discussed on
ruby-talk before, so there is at least acknowledgment here that,
compared to some other languages, Ruby’s set of available, robust
3rd-party libs could do better.
I also believe that progress is being made; the creation of RubyForge
(and perhaps enhancements to the RAA), for example, should make it
easier for people to locate existing projects and (ideally) helping out
before starting Yet Another Version of Something or Other.
On the positive side for Ruby it does seem to use less resources during
runtime compared to Python (webrick being an example).
There are other advantages, as well, not the least being Ruby’s
programmer friendliness. Depending on the project at hand, people may
have to decide if the language itself or the set of 3rd party libs
should be the deciding factor. Over time, of course, this will change
and Ruby will offer as good or better a choice of libs as any other
language, so the choice will be a no-brainer.
There is also work being done on language bridges, such that one can
call Java™ or .Net code from Ruby, effectively extending the range of
libs one could call from core Ruby code. Plus work is (I think) being
done so that Ruby can play well with Parrot (http://www.parrotcode.org/)
James Britt
I believe you’re referring to PIL and reportlab in python.
In ruby I think of PDF::Writer and RMAgick.
It seem that PDF::Writer has not been updated in the last months, but
probably the author would support you if you need to fix xomething, I
believe he’s just been distracted from other projects 
About imaging: I believe rmagick is quite updated and mature,
ain’t it ?
···
il Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:28:34 GMT, Greg Brondo greg@brondo.com ha scritto::
I’ve used Python on many a project but now am moving to Ruby more and more.
I’ve noticed a few things that still bug me about Ruby however:
-
Python has more 3rd party modules for it (pdf, graphics, etc).
-
It seems the developers of the above 3rd party modules seem more
interested in completing (as in mature) their work than their Ruby
counterparts.
My take on this is slightly different.
I don't believe that the difference in libraries is a great as it
sometimes appears to be. I believe that the biggest deficit is in
documentation. The documentation lags the libraries, and frequently by a
significant amount. This of course makes it difficult to use the
libraries. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to discover what libraries
are actually available.
The improvements Greg sites are real and important. I do think that more
stress on _up to date_ documentation would be a great leap forward in
terms of acceptance of Ruby as a serious competitor.
Seth Kurtzberg
···
Greg Brondo wrote:
I've used Python on many a project but now am moving to Ruby more and
more.
I've noticed a few things that still bug me about Ruby however:
1) Python has more 3rd party modules for it (pdf, graphics, etc).
2) It seems the developers of the above 3rd party modules seem more
interested in completing (as in mature) their work than their Ruby
counterparts.
To me it *seems* that as I look for libraries for Ruby (to use in a
production environment) I'm at a loss; Most of the libraries I would
use
are either Alpha quality or appear abandon (pdf being an example).
I'm not that familiar with the state of Python, but I've heard these
claims before,and I'll assume they're true. It's been discussed on
ruby-talk before, so there is at least acknowledgment here that,
compared to some other languages, Ruby's set of available, robust
3rd-party libs could do better.
I also believe that progress is being made; the creation of RubyForge
(and perhaps enhancements to the RAA), for example, should make it
easier for people to locate existing projects and (ideally) helping out
before starting Yet Another Version of Something or Other.
On the positive side for Ruby it does seem to use less resources during
runtime compared to Python (webrick being an example).
There are other advantages, as well, not the least being Ruby's
programmer friendliness. Depending on the project at hand, people may
have to decide if the language itself or the set of 3rd party libs
should be the deciding factor. Over time, of course, this will change
and Ruby will offer as good or better a choice of libs as any other
language, so the choice will be a no-brainer.
There is also work being done on language bridges, such that one can
call Java(tm) or .Net code from Ruby, effectively extending the range of
libs one could call from core Ruby code. Plus work is (I think) being
done so that Ruby can play well with Parrot (http://www.parrotcode.org/\)
James Britt
!DSPAM:4068a4a2223471493910419!
Last update was in February. I’ll have a new update when ImageMagick 6.0.0
goes production, which is, I’m told, “real soon now.”
···
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:55 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
About imaging: I believe rmagick is quite updated and mature, ain’t it ?
Inasmuch as I can, I will. I just wrote Greg privately because this thread
is so old, but basically I have had real life (both a paying project and now
a new job) and other projects (Ruwiki) intervene, and I hope to pick up
PDF::Writer again in the summer.
The biggest problem that PDF::Writer has from reports that I have received
to date is that the image support is, well, crap.
Part of this is because I’m not a PDF “wizard”; everything I know about PDF
is sitting in PDF::Writer, and there are parts of that that I still don’t
know The other part is because I’m not really a graphics wizard. If
someone would write an image library (preferably in pure Ruby or that
can/will be included in the distribution) so that I can get reliable
information from the graphics, I can use that
One of the overriding goals of PDF::Writer is and always will be to be pure
Ruby. It will be slower, but it will be more portable in the long run.
-austin
···
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 20:04:27 +0900, gabriele renzi wrote:
In ruby I think of PDF::Writer and RMAgick.
It seem that PDF::Writer has not been updated in the last months, but
probably the author would support you if you need to fix xomething, I
believe he’s just been distracted from other projects
–
austin ziegler * austin@halostatue.ca * Toronto, ON, Canada
software designer * pragmatic programmer * 2004.04.21
* 21.40.09
I couldn’t agree more. The lack of good, up to date and thorough
documentation is surely the major disadvantage of existing Ruby
libraries. I hate the “you don’t need the documentation, just read the
source code” attitude a lot of library developers represent - if I need
to read all the source code, I could write it by myself as well. I hope
this attitude will change soon.
Speaking of myself - before last release of my SWS library, after
completing the code, I spent about 2 weeks writing the docs. I really
hate that (most developers do, unfortunately), but my effort was greatly
rewarded - most of the emails I received soon after the release stated
the documentation as a strong point of the library.
···
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 07:52:50 +0900, seth@cql.com wrote:
My take on this is slightly different.
I don’t believe that the difference in libraries is a great as it
sometimes appears to be. I believe that the biggest deficit is in
documentation. The documentation lags the libraries, and frequently by a
significant amount. This of course makes it difficult to use the
libraries. Furthermore, it makes it difficult to discover what libraries
are actually available.
The improvements Greg sites are real and important. I do think that more
stress on up to date documentation would be a great leap forward in
terms of acceptance of Ruby as a serious competitor.
–
Marek Janukowicz
any chance to see it working on windows ?(I mean, without cygwin)
···
il Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:42:31 GMT, Tim Hunter cyclists@nc.rr.com ha scritto::
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:55 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
About imaging: I believe rmagick is quite updated and mature, ain’t it ?
Last update was in February. I’ll have a new update when ImageMagick 6.0.0
goes production, which is, I’m told, “real soon now.”
Austin,
What kind of graphics? What kind of information?
···
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 10:43:52 +0900, Austin Ziegler austin@halostatue.ca wrote:
Part of this is because I’m not a PDF “wizard”; everything I know about PDF
is sitting in PDF::Writer, and there are parts of that that I still don’t
know The other part is because I’m not really a graphics wizard. If
someone would write an image library (preferably in pure Ruby or that
can/will be included in the distribution) so that I can get reliable
information from the graphics, I can use that
Sorry. I don’t have the tools or experience to do a windows port. I’ve
been sorta hoping that somebody who does have those attributes would
volunteer
···
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:49:03 GMT, gabriele renzi surrender_it@remove.yahoo.it wrote:
il Tue, 30 Mar 2004 12:42:31 GMT, Tim Hunter cyclists@nc.rr.com ha
scritto::
On Tue, 30 Mar 2004 11:03:55 +0000, gabriele renzi wrote:
About imaging: I believe rmagick is quite updated and mature, ain’t it ?
Last update was in February. I’ll have a new update when ImageMagick 6.0.0
goes production, which is, I’m told, “real soon now.”
any chance to see it working on windows ?(I mean, without cygwin)