# Python \<=\> ruby **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [28 September 2002 18:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043 "2002-09-28T18:48:34Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Christian\_Szegedy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Christian\_Szegedy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Szegedy1)\ **Post date:** [28 September 2002 18:48 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/1 "2002-09-28T18:48:34Z")
FYI, I found this while googling: [www.cs.washington.edu/homes/kd/courses/pythonruby.pdf](http://www.cs.washington.edu/homes/kd/courses/pythonruby.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![Joel\_VanderWerf1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/94ad74/32.png) [@Joel\_VanderWerf1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Joel_VanderWerf1)\ **Post date:** [28 September 2002 19:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/2 "2002-09-28T19:38:14Z")
Christian Szegedy wrote: > FYI, I found this while googling: > > www.cs.washington.edu/homes/kd/courses/pythonruby.pdf See the thread starting at [http://www.ruby-talk.org/blade/37840](http://www.ruby-talk.org/blade/37840) ---
**Author:** ![Mauricio\_Fernndez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Mauricio\_Fernndez](https://rubytalk.org/u/Mauricio_Fernndez)\ **Post date:** [28 September 2002 22:56 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/3 "2002-09-28T22:56:59Z")
Just joking 🙂 > **···** > > – > \_ \_ > > > > \_\_ \_\_ _| |_ \_\_\_ \_ \_\_ \_\_\_ \_\_ \_ \_ \_\_ > > > '\_ \ / _`| __/__ | '_` \_ \ / ` | ’ \ > > > ) | (| | |_\_\_ \ | | | | | (_| | | | | > > > .\_\_/ \_,_|\ __|__ /| |_| |_|\__,_|_| |\_| > > > Running Debian GNU/Linux Sid (unstable) > > > batsman dot geo at yahoo dot com > > All the existing 2.0.x kernels are to buggy for 2.1.x to be the > main goal. > – Alan Cox ---
**Author:** ![MikkelFJ1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ce7236/32.png) [@MikkelFJ1](https://rubytalk.org/u/MikkelFJ1)\ **Post date:** [29 September 2002 11:31 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/4 "2002-09-29T11:31:33Z")
“Christian Szegedy” [szegedy@t-online.de](mailto:szegedy@t-online.de) wrote in message [news:an4t5r$fh$01$1@news.t-online.com](mailto:news:an4t5r$fh$01$1@news.t-online.com)… > FYI, I found this while googling: > > www.cs.washington.edu/homes/kd/courses/pythonruby.pdf The above discusses the uniform access of everything is an object and compares to Java: Math.abs versus -3.abs in Ruby. This reveals something I’ve only slowly grown to realize in OOP: It’s no so much that objects have methods as it is the fact that the object does all the scope resolution for you. You can have ten different functions of the same name but the object always know which one is relevant. When comparing at functional language like OCaml (ignoring it’s object system) to Ruby, it doesn’t really matter whether you write “find obj 2” or you write “obj.find 2”. However, it does matter whether you write “Hash.find obj 2” or you write “List.find obj 2”. In other words, the functional style requires you to know what kind of an object you are dealing with and use the correct find function. But this is rendundant as the object already knows it, regardless of static or dynamically typed (except OCaml sometimes derives the type of the object based on the formal argument types of the function). Templates and generics deals with the above problem. Templates require the object to be typed wheras Ruby stores the available functions in a class, which is essentially just making the type lookup at a different space and time. Perhaps OO is more about scope than it is about objects and perhaps a new language could be designed to work on scopes rather than objects. I already see Ruby as more of a scope managing system than an OO language. If you look at Lua there is a few things in common, but Lua does not manage scope, whereas Ruby does in the concept of objects and classes. Mikkel ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Szegedy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Christian\_Szegedy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Szegedy1)\ **Post date:** [28 September 2002 21:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/5 "2002-09-28T21:09:22Z")
Joel VanderWerf wrote: > See the thread starting at [http://www.ruby-talk.org/blade/37840](http://www.ruby-talk.org/blade/37840) Sorry! I was too quick. ---
**Author:** ![Bulat\_Ziganshin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ba8739/32.png) [@Bulat\_Ziganshin](https://rubytalk.org/u/Bulat_Ziganshin)\ **Post date:** [30 September 2002 08:10 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/6 "2002-09-30T08:10:13Z")
Hello MikkelFJ, Sunday, September 29, 2002, 3:31:33 PM, you wrote: > When comparing at functional language like OCaml (ignoring it’s object > system) to Ruby, it doesn’t really matter whether you write “find obj 2” or > you write “obj.find 2”. However, it does matter whether you write “Hash.find > obj 2” or you write “List.find obj 2”. In other words, the functional style > requires you to know what kind of an object you are dealing with and use the no, it’s dealed by overloading mechanism > **···** > > – > Best regards, > Bulat [mailto:bulatz@integ.ru](mailto:bulatz@integ.ru) ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Szegedy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ebca7d/32.png) [@Christian\_Szegedy](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Szegedy)\ **Post date:** [30 September 2002 09:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/python-ruby/2043/7 "2002-09-30T09:16:22Z")
Bulat Ziganshin wrote: > Hello MikkelFJ, > > Sunday, September 29, 2002, 3:31:33 PM, you wrote: > > > When comparing at functional language like OCaml (ignoring it’s object > > system) to Ruby, it doesn’t really matter whether you write “find obj 2” or > > you write “obj.find 2”. However, it does matter whether you write “Hash.find > > obj 2” or you write “List.find obj 2”. In other words, the functional style > > requires you to know what kind of an object you are dealing with and use the > > no, it’s dealed by overloading mechanism OCaml has no overloading. but it would badly need it, I have seen an experimental implementation of it, but only for an older version of OCaml. Regards, Christian