I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
belies this.
3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
what applications?
4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
with Ruby?
I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
Can't tell you, sorry. As far as I am concerned I tend to make the latest stable Ruby on new systems (unless they're Windows machines, then I take the one-click-installer).
3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
what applications?
4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
with Ruby?
I used to do Perl and C++ programming when I first too notice of Ruby. I wasn't too exited, mainly because I didn't understand the Japanese documentation. Then some months later I found Dave & Andy's book "Programming Ruby" (the pickaxe) in the local bookstore and instantly got hooked.
I didn't have the feeling I actively learned Ruby. I learned that there is a language out there that worked pretty much the way I think.
And I have to admit that *this* was not the way I got used to Perl (but I have met people how say that it's just the other way round for them).
I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
I can not say much about this as I'm not a Linux user by myself, but it appears to me that installing Ruby via a package manager is still fairly easy.
2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
belies this.
There was talk about speeding releases up a bit, but the benefit of doing it this ways is that Ruby releases usually are very stable. I've even used release candidates without trouble via the wonderful one-click installer.
3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
what applications?
Of course. There's lots of usage samples on the RubyGarden Wiki:
Ruby is because of RubyOnRails nowadays also getting used for running websites like basecamphq.com, 43things.com, rubyonrails.org and so on.
See http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DemoApps for a few more samples.
4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
with Ruby?
I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few months) would be availability.
I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any progress
on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
belies this.
3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
what applications?
4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
with Ruby?
When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.
"Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:35l3tbF4lqk45U1@individual.net...
brundlefly76 wrote:
<snip/>
> 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
> with Ruby?
I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
months) would be availability.
+1
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
"Mohammad Khan" <mkhan@lextranet.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:1106671849.15925.12.camel@localhost.localdomain...
> I have been a production Perl programmer for about 10 years, and am
> looking into tinkering with Ruby, and had a few questions:
>
> 1. I noticed Ruby was not installed by default on Suse 9.2 (although a
> package was available in Yast). Does anyone have any information on
> what Linux distributions *do* install Ruby by default, and any
progress
> on that? Because of the nature of my work, its not too convenient for
> me to go installing interpreters on every machine I need to work on.
>
> 2. How fast do Ruby releases move - say in comparison to Perl? I cant
> tell if it moves very slowly or simply has a versioning scheme that
> belies this.
>
> 3. Is anyone here running Ruby in a production environment, and for
> what applications?
>
> 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
> with Ruby?
When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.
On 2005-01-25, Mohammad Khan <mkhan@lextranet.com> wrote:
When I was introduced with ruby by my boss, I was using Perl for about
3+ years at that time. It was about 2 years back.
I am not using Perl for at least 18 months.
"Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:35l3tbF4lqk45U1@individual.net...
> brundlefly76 wrote:
<snip/>
> > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
> > with Ruby?
>
> I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
> suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
> Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
> easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
> today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
> months) would be availability.
+1
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Yep. Perl's OO sux0r. Ruby = bestOf(Perl, Python)
···
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 17:25:52 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> wrote:
"Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:35l3tbF4lqk45U1@individual.net...
> brundlefly76 wrote:
<snip/>
> > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
> > with Ruby?
>
> I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
> suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
> Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
> easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
> today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
> months) would be availability.
+1
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Definitely, that's the seller. A lot of the gurus on the list build awesome
object frameworks with ruby - i just use it because it makes scripts easier
to type and read than perl. although enlightenment does seep into my head
by hanging about here too.
The OOP is *so* much better than perls (it's actually usable) that you can
take advantage of it even in a 25-line cron script while still
enjoying yourself.
As for the availability, it's easy to think 'well, i have perl already,
so I'll knock out a perl script' but that has bitten me so many times in
the last year (when someone wants a new feature) that my new year resolution
was to break the habit.
I finally put it on one of our servers last week
after wasting an hour trying to get perl oop back in its box. It was quicker
to download ruby (only 3Mb, I get emails from my manager bigger than that),
build it and rewrite the script (an apache server-status -> snmp bridge)
than to trawl around CPAN crying.
You don't even need root if you install it in ~/bin and if it gets the
job done in a morning rather than a week, who's going to care?
···
--
'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge
your ass leaves, please'
-- Alien loves Predator
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self" parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
* Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net> [0127 08:27]:
>
> "Florian Gross" <flgr@ccan.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:35l3tbF4lqk45U1@individual.net...
> > brundlefly76 wrote:
>
> <snip/>
>
> > > 4. Any Perl programmers have any comments on their experiences working
> > > with Ruby?
> >
> > I've enjoyed the switch a lot. I assumed that Ruby was unlike Perl and I
> > suppose that helped with avoiding some of the potential gotchas. With
> > Ruby it was also natural to organize my applications in parts that
> > easily allowed for refactoring and reusing. The only reason I might have
> > today for using Perl over Ruby (I've not done this since quite a few
> > months) would be availability.
>
> +1
>
> IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
> Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Definitely, that's the seller. A lot of the gurus on the list build awesome
object frameworks with ruby - i just use it because it makes scripts easier
to type and read than perl. although enlightenment does seep into my head
by hanging about here too.
The OOP is *so* much better than perls (it's actually usable) that you can
take advantage of it even in a 25-line cron script while still
enjoying yourself.
As for the availability, it's easy to think 'well, i have perl already,
so I'll knock out a perl script' but that has bitten me so many times in
the last year (when someone wants a new feature) that my new year resolution
was to break the habit.
I finally put it on one of our servers last week
after wasting an hour trying to get perl oop back in its box. It was quicker
to download ruby (only 3Mb, I get emails from my manager bigger than that),
build it and rewrite the script (an apache server-status -> snmp bridge)
than to trawl around CPAN crying.
Heh, but that's no reason realy, is it?
···
On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 19:29:02 +0900, Dick Davies <rasputnik@hellooperator.net> wrote:
You don't even need root if you install it in ~/bin and if it gets the
job done in a morning rather than a week, who's going to care?
--
'When the door hits you in the ass on the way out, clean off the smudge
your ass leaves, please'
-- Alien loves Predator
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self" parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).
Accordin to http://www.network-theory.co.uk/docs/pylang/ref_103.html
"Python was created in the early 1990s by Guido van Rossum at
Stichting Mathematisch Centrum (CWI) in the Netherlands as a successor
of a language called ABC. "
Also, artima - The Making of Python
" Guido van Rossum: In the early 1980s, I worked as an implementer on
a team building a language called ABC at Centrum voor Wiskunde en
Informatica (CWI). I don't know how well people know ABC's influence
on Python. I try to mention ABC's influence because I'm indebted to
everything I learned during that project and to the people who worked
on it."
"ABC's design had a very clear, sharp focus. ABC was intended to be a
programming language that could be taught to intelligent computer
users who were not computer programmers or software developers in any
sense. "
I get the sense that the main goal in Python was not to build an OO
language, but to employ OO concepts (and others) to the extent that
they help create a language suitable for beginners. It seems that if
theory or design purity would get in the way of a newbie quickly
picking up the language, then theory + purity got chucked.
Perhaps Python could be thought of as a excellent attempt to clean up ABC?
···
On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 04:13:58 +0900, Ben Giddings <bg-rubytalk@infofiend.com> wrote:
Robert Klemme wrote:
> IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
> Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python
back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's
OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self"
parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python
back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's
OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self"
parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
In Python "everything is an object" from release 2.2 and the
introduction of the new object model (PEP 252 and PEP 253).
AFAIK not even the std lib has been ported to using class foo (object),
if I remind it correctly the shelve library for example doesn't use it.
The old object model is mantained for retrocompatibility, including all
the stdlib modules that was used for subclassing strings, dicts et al.
HTH,
ngw
···
--
checking for life_signs in -lKenny... no
Oh my god, make (1) killed Kenny ! You, bastards !
IMHO one of the major advantages of Ruby is that it's OO all over while
Perl's OO was retrofitted.
Does anybody know offhand if Python's OO was retrofitted? I used Python back in '97, but don't really remember the details too well. Python's OO sure has that "tacked on" feel, what with the underscores and "self" parameters and all, but maybe it was just a really odd design decision?
Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).
Probably matz knows more about Python
If we get lucky, Gabriel Renzi will post to this topic...
Uhm, I used Python 1.5, somewhere in 1997 or 1998. At that time, not everything was an object as it seems to be now (since Python 2.0).
Oh, I know that not everything was an object up until Python 2.4 (or maybe 2.3), what I'm wondering about is whether the first few versions of Python had *any* object-oriented stuff.
It seems odd to me that if they were designing Python to be object-oriented from day 1, that they'd use such an odd syntax for the OO stuff (the self parameter, the double-underscore things, etc).
" Guido van Rossum: "ABC's design had a very clear, sharp focus. ABC was intended to be a
programming language that could be taught to intelligent computer
users who were not computer programmers or software developers in any
sense. "
Why does this description remind me of another (infamous) language... COBOL?
Since I thought it odd too, I asked Guido about the self parameter at an SVLUG
meeting a while ago. His answer was (hope I paraphrase this right) that it
should be possible to add a function as a method to a class outside of that
class, in which case you'd need to be able to specify the receiver. Doing it
this way makes it trivially possible to do this without coming up with any new
syntax.
···
On Thu, Jan 27, 2005 at 05:05:08AM +0900, Ben Giddings wrote:
It seems odd to me that if they were designing Python to be
object-oriented from day 1, that they'd use such an odd syntax for the
OO stuff (the self parameter, the double-underscore things, etc).
--
Jos Backus _/ _/_/_/ Sunnyvale, CA
_/ _/ _/
_/ _/_/_/
_/ _/ _/ _/
jos at catnook.com _/_/ _/_/_/ require 'std/disclaimer'
