I tend to like the "R", it leads to PUR (PostgreSQL UNIX Ruby) solutions...
- Dimitri
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:38:50 +0900, James Britt <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> wrote:
Well, I'm inclined to blame "LAMP".
People are encouraged to use suboptimal tools for a task simply because
the tool name fits a snappy acronym.If matz had only picked a name that began with "P", rather than "R" ...
tony summerfelt wrote:
(snip)
i've found that when someone becomes a 'python person' they
absolutely REFUSE to consider another language.
Please stop trolling.
(snip)
rather than get bombarded by moronic hatemail (as happened last time
when i point all this out) i'm leaving it at that...
Have you considered the possibility that the 'moronic hatemail' reaction could have more to do with your own attitude ?
--
bruno desthuilliers
A 'python person' on a Ruby list !-)
--
Just a little... 
Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com> wrote:
Boy, do you hate Python or what!
--
Luc Heinrich - lucsky@mac.com
ruby has what python IMHO will never have. a friendly community.
tcl/tk has it also...perl and python seem to be in the same camp when
it comes to it's users...
a few years ago i asked a question in the python newsgroup. i was
trying to port some perl code to python (which i was in the process of
learning)
it was immediatly tagged as a troll and the vitriol of the responses i
got was shocking. rudest bunch of people i've ever met online.
you can still google the responses to me:
(http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/14039\)
it was in the ruby newsgroup, but written by a python person...i'm
sure a ruby programmer would never have replied like that 
i've found that python people DO have an attitude. they don't like to
hear anything negative about their language of choice (even if it
happens to be factually true).
one thing i liked about perl was tim toadie...and that seems to apply
to ruby as well. but with python (to quote the author of the language
himself):
'there's only ONE way to do it'
how can a language with tenets like that be flexible OR user friendly?
and worse yet, the python community subscribes to this way of
thinking...
i've been forced to use python on on occasion, but as i learn more and
more ruby i'm at the point of never needing python again...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:22:35 +0900, you wrote:
Boy, do you hate Python or what! I haven't seen Ruby users so critical
about Python.
Then what would you suggest?
I think visually distinguishing between local and instance variables isn't
so bad.
KB
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 07:03:56 +0900, Lothar Scholz wrote:
Hello Premshree,
Orthogonal OO design, blocks and open classes are in my opinion the only
serious differences in the language. A mark-sweep GC vs. reference
counting GC is also a huge difference but only visible in the C-API.> Yes, that's one of the major differences I point out when I compare
> Ruby with Python. The other thing I used to point out was that Ruby
> doesn't have a "self" for instance variablesI can't use that
> anymore, though: that has been elminated now, I'm told.But Ruby uses @ and @@ as a prefix, also not 100% perfect.
i happen to intensely hate python also for what its worth
reason: 3 wasted hours due to an indentation "bug"
Alex
On Jan 9, 2005, at 6:22 PM, Premshree Pillai wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:11:29 +0900, Luc Heinrich <lucsky@mac.com> > wrote:
Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com> wrote:
I think you are being too critical about Python.
You're probably right. My opinion on Python is just based on my personal
experience with it: using Python has the same effect on me then using
Windows, it makes me want to projectile vomit my breakfast (or lunch orBoy, do you hate Python or what! I haven't seen Ruby users so critical
about Python.
* benjamin.ferrari <benjamin.ferrari@gmail.com> [0126 09:26]:
I guess this is his response to your mail then:
Bruce Eckel thinks Java is a good language, so I'll take his opinions
with that in mind. Anyone who says
5.times { print "Odelay!" }
is too perly either doesn't know perl, or (more likely) gets a thrill
out of the clicky noise his keyboard makes banging out a Java iterator
or a for loop ...
--
'You were doing well until everyone died'
-- God
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
ok, not you...
but at the time the other few dozen that sent me hatemail found ruby
a 'toy language', 'too perlish', 'too much like smalltalk', etc. and
when i mentioned that ruby might be easier to embed into a C program
than python is, the response was 'BS'. keeping in mind that i've done
both but the python person hadn't.
anyway. i'm not going round and round on this...been there done that,
got my flame re-tardant t-shirt...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:12:55 +0900, you wrote:
With all due respect, I'd disagree here.
yup, i've been there...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:52:22 +0900, you wrote:
There's also this page
http://www.ruby-doc.org/RubyEyeForThePythonGuy.html
Premshree Pillai wrote:
Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:
Hi,
The lack of English documentation was the biggest
(perhaps only) weakness in Ruby.Exactly. I don't see any other reason why Ruby didn't take off as well
as Python.I don't think so. You have more English documents than in Japanese
these days. So that the reason should be "the lack of documentation"
at most. You might know that many among open source developers are
not good document writers (including myself).Well, I'm inclined to blame "LAMP".
People are encouraged to use suboptimal tools for a task simply because
the tool name fits a snappy acronym.If matz had only picked a name that began with "P", rather than "R" ...
Heh, once one of my friends called me a LAMeR.
That's pretty funny. =) Well if you drop the 'L' you can get:
RAM
Ruby, Apache, MySQL
And now you have a larger target audience of both Linux users, Windows users, and those Mac folk to!
And if you like the naming convention of the Auto Industry you could do a:
RAM oLXW
Ruby, Apache, MySQL on Linux/OS X/Windows
Zach
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:38:50 +0900, James Britt > <jamesUNDERBARb@neurogami.com> wrote:
In message "Re: Python vs Ruby" >>> on Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:05:16 +0900, Premshree Pillai <premshree.pillai@gmail.com> writes:
* Douglas Livingstone <rampant@gmail.com> [0159 22:59]:
.... (For me, a good programmer will be able to work in both modes:
a problem may recieve an "ugly" solution to start with, but over time
that would be refactored into "nice" code. If it wasn't, then the ugly
code would more than likely build up and choke the applicatin into a
ground up rewrite, much like fat deposits building up in arteries.)
That's the gist of what i was trying to say earlier about my perl experience
* I write a small script in perl
(because I don't have time to run an advocacy campaign and train all
the other guys in ruby. they're all too busy to sit through a rant.)
I swear a bit through all the $ and for loops but it's fairly painless.
* it gets cobbled up into a working prototype
* we trial it
* it ends up being a production script because too many people find out about it
* someone asks for a feature, I bolt it on
* repeat the last step a few times
(some stuff breaks due to my testing being 'that looks alright')
* it passes some kind of critical mass where I want to refactor the whole shambles
* I find it incredibly hard to do and wish I'd bitten the bullet and used ruby to start with
the last point is a consequence of perls shitty oop mainly - I find it nigh on
impossible to do effective unit testing in perl, and it encourages bodging.
At least with ruby my quick and dirty hacks are hidden away behind a method
and testable, lifes' too short to grit your teeth through all the $self->method($thing);
rubbish.
(admittedly the perl version has a test suite - or 'the university'
as I call it. The phone rings instead of the bar going red.)
--
'If we can hit that bull's-eye, the rest of the dominoes will fall like a
house of cards... Checkmate!'
-- Zapp. Brannigan
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
Hello Douglas,
> IMHO the different syntax shouldn't be an argument for a "serious"
> programmer.Please count me out as a serious programmer, then. I care deeply about
the aesthetics of Ruby.
Well... he did put it in quotes. I think what he means by "serious" is
someone who writes code simply to get a job done - nothing more.
For me a "serious" programmer is a highly educated and skilled person
- nothing more. Such a person should be able to use indentation based
syntax, curly braces or simple 100 level deepth nested COMMON-LISP
parenthesis and feel comfortable with it (after a few hours).
If you count for aestetics IMHO ruby will not get that far when
compared to python, just because the many dirty tricks and the 100
ways to write literals and mix it with ruby code by using #{...}
But talking about this is like saying that old style Oil Paintings are art,
but Comics are not. It's just a matter of different styles. And its the
artist who is responsible for the painting.
--
Best regards, emailto: scholz at scriptolutions dot com
Lothar Scholz http://www.ruby-ide.com
CTO Scriptolutions Ruby, PHP, Python IDE 's
Douglas Livingstone wrote:
IMHO the different syntax shouldn't be an argument for a "serious"
programmer.
Please count me out as a serious programmer, then. I care deeply about
the aesthetics of Ruby.
Well... he did put it in quotes. I think what he means by "serious" is
someone who writes code simply to get a job done - nothing more.
"Serious" is the wrong word, it implies that people who cares about
more than the functionality are not "serious", which is BS.
Wash your mouths out, guys. In English, "serious" is a highly derogatory and offensive and dull term. Get that out.
_why
For me the problem is not really the language, but people who uses and
likes a lot Python. They are hard to talk with. :-p
- ----------------------------
Eustáquio "TaQ" Rangel
eustaquiorangel@yahoo.com
http://beam.to/taq
Usuário GNU/Linux no. 224050
yeah, that can be a killer if you don't use a fixed width font.
i found the only way to avoid that was to write python code with a dos
or some console editor (like the console version of vim, boxer, etc).
if i had any complaint about ruby it would be begin/end blocks. i
thought we ( as programmers) were done with that when pascal fell by
the wayside. i much prefer {curly brackets} to designate blocks of
code...
http://home.cogeco.ca/~tsummerfelt1
telnet://ventedspleen.dyndns.org
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 19:51:04 +0900, you wrote:
i happen to intensely hate python also for what its worth
reason: 3 wasted hours due to an indentation "bug"
tony summerfelt wrote:
>Boy, do you hate Python or what! I haven't seen Ruby users so
critical
>about Python.
ruby has what python IMHO will never have. a friendly community.
tcl/tk has it also...perl and python seem to be in the same camp when
it comes to it's users...a few years ago i asked a question in the python newsgroup. i was
trying to port some perl code to python (which i was in the process
of
learning)
it was immediatly tagged as a troll and the vitriol of the responses
i
got was shocking. rudest bunch of people i've ever met online.
you can still google the responses to me:
(http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/14039\)it was in the ruby newsgroup, but written by a python person...i'm
sure a ruby programmer would never have replied like thati've found that python people DO have an attitude. they don't like to
hear anything negative about their language of choice (even if it
happens to be factually true).
It seems that the ruby's community is not so friendly anymore:
I still consider myself as a part of the python community.
And you lumping me together with these people
(http://blade.nagaokaut.ac.jp/cgi-bin/scat.rb/ruby/ruby-talk/14039\) is
very offending.
I think it is really as simple as large community => many morons.
'there's only ONE way to do it'
No! The correct statement is:
'There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.'
the _obvious_ is very important here.
The idea behind this really makes a lot of sense (although I currently
prefer the ruby way). I tried to explain that here:
http://onthethought.blogspot.com/2005/01/thinking-in-ruby-not.html#comments
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 02:22:35 +0900, you wrote:
Zach Dennis wrote:
That's pretty funny. =) Well if you drop the 'L' you can get:
RAM
Ruby, Apache, MySQL
And now you have a larger target audience of both Linux users, Windows users, and those Mac folk to!
RAP = Ruby + Apache + PostgreSQL? Though various people's tastes in music may lean against this.
/mysql makes my head hurt
I've done both. They are about the same level of difficulty(*), I found the Python experience slightly easier - but thats down to better docs on the Python side.
That said the recent Python 2.4 release on Windows will cause many people linking dynamically to the CRT a lot of trouble (you built your app with Python 2.2 or 2.3 and linked to the Visual C++ 6 runtime - when you run with Python 2.4 you pass in a FILE * to a Python function and it blows up because Python 2.4 is using the Visual C++ 7.1 runtime - that is a really nasty bug that is not at all obvious in its cause - and the fix to work in all scenarios (where you can't control which CRT will be used) is not trivial or for the average developer as it requires some mucking about to determine which CRT has been used prior to obtaining the FILE *).
(*) Neither is sufficiently harder than the other to warrant a "mine's better than yours" argument over language features.
Stephen
In message <vj45u0dnupl70ocm267ih4j0h5kt7dnpup@4ax.com>, tony summerfelt <snowzone5@hotmail.com> writes
when i mentioned that ruby might be easier to embed into a C program
than python is, the response was 'BS'. keeping in mind that i've done
both but the python person hadn't.
--
Stephen Kellett
Object Media Limited http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk
RSI Information: http://www.objmedia.demon.co.uk/rsi.html
(admittedly the perl version has a test suite - or 'the university'
as I call it. The phone rings instead of the bar going red.)
Nice
Hi,
Hello Douglas,
>> > IMHO the different syntax shouldn't be an argument for a "serious"
>> > programmer.
>>
>> Please count me out as a serious programmer, then. I care deeply about
>> the aesthetics of Ruby.> Well... he did put it in quotes. I think what he means by "serious" is
> someone who writes code simply to get a job done - nothing more.For me a "serious" programmer is a highly educated and skilled person
- nothing more. Such a person should be able to use indentation based
syntax, curly braces or simple 100 level deepth nested COMMON-LISP
parenthesis and feel comfortable with it (after a few hours).
Yeah, right. But all the "serious" programmers won't write all the
code that people and companies need. No one should envy the "serious"
programmers. Different people for different tasks. Once a "serious"
programmer is done, maybe a "not-so-serious" programmer will have to
maintain his ugly code. How come he dare to understand the "serious"
programmer's code?
If you count for aestetics IMHO ruby will not get that far when
compared to python, just because the many dirty tricks and the 100
ways to write literals and mix it with ruby code by using #{...}
When most of the code is clean, all the code is considered clean. Ask
the Python guys...
I mean, most Ruby code can be considered clean, just like most of the
Python code can be considered clean, though Ruby and Python do have
some tricks up their sleeves (but again, they are quite different
anyway.)
But talking about this is like saying that old style Oil Paintings are art,
but Comics are not. It's just a matter of different styles. And its the
artist who is responsible for the painting.
As long as chess is considered a sport, I'm fine with that.
Cheers,
Joao
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 09:05:28 +0900, Lothar Scholz <mailinglists@scriptolutions.com> wrote: