In article <y7QIf.39$9r.6@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
.
.
.
Ruby should be a better fit for the typical Fortran programmer. I am
surprised Ruby is not more the standard scripting language for
scientists. At least some people who know both say that Ruby is better
even though Python is (at least for now) more popular.
.
.
.
Please help me understand what you're writing here. I *think*
you're saying that Ruby is easier for Fortraneers to learn at
the syntactic level than Python. I can well imagine that.
There's a distinct meaning of "better fit", though, that I want
to highlight. I propose that Python has established its "fitness"
through the record of successful projects implemented as
Python-Fortran *collaborations*. There are several aspects to
these realizations of partnerships between a couple of different
languages:
A. It might well be that two languages need a little
distance between themselves syntactically to
"marry" well; if they're too similar at this level,
there's no gain to a division of labor between
them.
B. Python has a strong tradition of "playing nicely"
with outside resources. It was one of Python's
prominent initial goals, back at its invention in
the late '80s. Ruby also aims to do better at
this than, for example, Perl, but, as near as I
can tell, the Ruby community has never emphasized
cooperation with other languages as much as have
Pythonistas.
C. At a technical level, I believe it remains easier
to bind Python and Fortran than to do so with Ruby
and Fortran.
My conclusion: there are valid reasons, beyond "popularity", to
fit Python and Fortran together.
In article <y7QIf.39$9r.6@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
.
.
.
Ruby should be a better fit for the typical Fortran programmer. I am
surprised Ruby is not more the standard scripting language for
scientists. At least some people who know both say that Ruby is better
even though Python is (at least for now) more popular.
.
.
.
Please help me understand what you're writing here. I *think*
you're saying that Ruby is easier for Fortraneers to learn at
the syntactic level than Python. I can well imagine that.
There's a distinct meaning of "better fit", though, that I want
to highlight. I propose that Python has established its "fitness"
through the record of successful projects implemented as
Python-Fortran *collaborations*.
This is because Python was there earlier.
There are several aspects to
these realizations of partnerships between a couple of different
languages:
A. It might well be that two languages need a little
distance between themselves syntactically to
"marry" well; if they're too similar at this level,
there's no gain to a division of labor between
them.
Maybe so, but I don't see how Ruby is anymore Fortran-like than Python
B. Python has a strong tradition of "playing nicely"
with outside resources. It was one of Python's
prominent initial goals, back at its invention in
the late '80s. Ruby also aims to do better at
this than, for example, Perl, but, as near as I
can tell, the Ruby community has never emphasized
cooperation with other languages as much as have
Pythonistas.
C. At a technical level, I believe it remains easier
to bind Python and Fortran than to do so with Ruby
and Fortran.
There are lots of tools like the dl library, Inline::C (Inline::Fortran
coming?) available in Ruby as well. I forget the details, but didn't someone
earlier in this thread successfully create a Ruby<->Fortran bridge ?
Phil
···
In article <b3qdd3-dfr.ln1@lairds.us>, Cameron Laird <claird@lairds.us> wrote:
