# Ruby aesthetics **URL:** \ **Category:** ruby-talk\ **Created:** [31 August 2002 09:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502 "2002-08-31T09:16:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Vegai1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/278dde/32.png) [@Vegai1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Vegai1)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 09:16 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/1 "2002-08-31T09:16:50Z")
Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I like its clean syntax. Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. Comments? ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tim_Hammerquist2)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 09:36 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/2 "2002-08-31T09:36:53Z")
vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING graced us by uttering: > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > like its clean syntax. > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python > aesthetically. > > Comments? I had different opinions and experiences with these two languages. But I have many acquantances in Guido’s realm, so if your journey leads you there, give them my regards. I don’t really talk to them much any more: I chose Ruby. Tim Hammerquist > **···** > > – > “The Devil made me do it.” > I have never made one of them do anything. They live their own tiny lives. > I do not live their lives for them. > – Lucifer, The Sandman ---
**Author:** ![michael\_libby1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/779978/32.png) [@michael\_libby1](https://rubytalk.org/u/michael_libby1)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 13:08 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/3 "2002-08-31T13:08:36Z")
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. -michael (who hopes this religious war can avoided) > **···** > > On Saturday 31 August 2002 04:16, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Michael C. Libby [x@ichimunki.com](mailto:x@ichimunki.com) > public key: [http://www.ichimunki.com/public\_key.txt](http://www.ichimunki.com/public_key.txt) > web site: [http://www.ichimunki.com](http://www.ichimunki.com) > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ---
**Author:** ![Shashank\_Date](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@Shashank\_Date](https://rubytalk.org/u/Shashank_Date)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 15:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/4 "2002-08-31T15:37:09Z")
At least some of us in this (Ruby) group, including myself, find “economy of expression” a highly aesthetic phenomenon, so if it is possible to demonstrate that for any given Ruby statement/expression there is a shorter, more terse Python equivalent, you will have us converted. [vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING](mailto:vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING) wrote in message [news:slrnan10n5.oei.vegai@lorien.it.jyu.fi](mailto:news:slrnan10n5.oei.vegai@lorien.it.jyu.fi)… > **···** > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? ---
**Author:** ![Albert2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3be4f8/32.png) [@Albert2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Albert2)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 15:49 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/5 "2002-08-31T15:49:55Z")
Troll? > **···** > > On Saturday 31 August 2002 04:16 am, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? ---
**Author:** ![Christian\_Szegedy1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Christian\_Szegedy1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Christian_Szegedy1)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 16:17 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/6 "2002-08-31T16:17:11Z")
vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > like its clean syntax. > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > Comments? Sounds to be a very fertile remark :))) ---
**Author:** ![nico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b5a626/32.png) [@nico](https://rubytalk.org/u/nico)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 17:09 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/7 "2002-08-31T17:09:50Z")
This isn’t slashdot, if you want to start a flame war don’t make it so obvious. Besides, everyone knows INTERCAL has the best syntax. > **···** > > On August 31, 2002 05:16 am, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? > > – > To call me “awesome” is an understatement. ---
**Author:** ![Nat\_Pryce](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/b38774/32.png) [@Nat\_Pryce](https://rubytalk.org/u/Nat_Pryce)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 19:46 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/8 "2002-08-31T19:46:48Z")
I’ve used both Ruby and Python for delivering production applications. My opinion is that Python syntax is more elegant than that of Ruby when your code _uses_ existing classes. However, Python syntax is less elegant than Ruby when you _define_ new classes, because of all the underscores and explicit self parameters. However, as code evolves, one ends up writing more and more classes, so I find that Python code starts off very readable but gradually becomes less so, while Ruby code stays as readable as it evolves. Python’s evolution has left it with a mix of primitive and object types (also fixed in the latest versions), built-in functions that should be methods (“map”, for example), reserved words that should be methods (“in” for example), etc. I find that Ruby’s model of “everything is an object” makes code more elegant, and it’s easier to find the right method in the documentation. Ruby code becomes significantly more elegant when you use blocks to extend the language; To achieve something like the same effect, Python requires lambda expressions, additional functions, or implementations of “magic” methods with lots of double-underscores in them. The lack of lexical scoping is a drawback in Python, because it makes local functions much less useful as an alternative to blocks, although this fixed in the lastest versions if you import scopes from **future**. Cheers, Nat. > **···** > > On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 10:16, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? > > – > Dr. Nathaniel Pryce, Technical Director, B13media Ltd. > Studio 3a, 22-24 Highbury Grove, London N5 2EA, UK > [http://www.b13media.com](http://www.b13media.com) ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 01:12 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/9 "2002-09-01T01:12:59Z")
My two reasons for disliking Python’s aesthetics: - indentation-as-syntax - explicit “self” parameter to methods My (main) reason for liking Ruby’s aesthetics: - it’s terse Seeya! Gavin > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING](mailto:vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING) > Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 7:16 PM > Subject: Ruby aesthetics > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? ---
**Author:** ![Massimiliano\_Mirra4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/43a26b/32.png) [@Massimiliano\_Mirra4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Massimiliano_Mirra4)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 12:28 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/10 "2002-09-01T12:28:55Z")
Many check into Ruby quite a lot, and they like its clean syntax. Then comes Python, which they find is inferior to Ruby aesthetically. Comments? > **···** > > On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 06:16:50PM +0900, vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING wrote: > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? ---
**Author:** ![HAL\_9000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/90ced4/32.png) [@HAL\_9000](https://rubytalk.org/u/HAL_9000)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 16:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/11 "2002-08-31T16:32:35Z")
> At least some of us in this (Ruby) group, including myself, find “economy > of > expression” a highly aesthetic phenomenon, > so if it is possible to demonstrate that for any given Ruby > statement/expression there is a shorter, more terse Python equivalent, you > will have us converted. > > [vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING](mailto:vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING) wrote in message > [news:slrnan10n5.oei.vegai@lorien.it.jyu.fi](mailto:news:slrnan10n5.oei.vegai@lorien.it.jyu.fi)… > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > like its clean syntax. > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > > > Comments? I too suspect this may be a simple troll. However, I do find Python’s idea of meaningful indentation interesting. It does make the code shorter and a little less cluttered. Though I can understand why many people would not like it. If there are other issues, tell us about them. Hal > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Shashank Date” [ADATE@kc.rr.com](mailto:ADATE@kc.rr.com) > Newsgroups: comp.lang.ruby > To: “ruby-talk ML” [ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org](mailto:ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org) > Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2002 10:37 AM > Subject: Re: Ruby aesthetics ---
**Author:** ![Vegai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/ce73a5/32.png) [@Vegai](https://rubytalk.org/u/Vegai)\ **Post date:** [31 August 2002 18:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/12 "2002-08-31T18:37:24Z")
Thank you, sound reply – I’ll stick with my choice. (to the rest of you: that wasn’t a troll. Learn some manners, even if this is usenet) > **···** > > In article [slrnan12tq.h8d.tim@vegeta.ath.cx](mailto:slrnan12tq.h8d.tim@vegeta.ath.cx), Tim Hammerquist wrote: > > > vegai@nic.fi.GOTSOMUCHSPAMKEEPITCOMING graced us by uttering: > > > > > Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > > > like its clean syntax. > > > > > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python > > > aesthetically. > > > > > > Comments? > > > > I had different opinions and experiences with these two languages. > > > > But I have many acquantances in Guido’s realm, so if your journey > > leads you there, give them my regards. I don’t really talk to > > them much any more: I chose Ruby. > > – > V.K. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tim_Hammerquist2)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 01:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/13 "2002-09-01T01:37:50Z")
Gavin Sinclair graced us by uttering: > My two reasons for disliking Python’s aesthetics: > > - indentation-as-syntax I’ve never found it difficult to read, and actually was really excited about it. I found a few instances where it was a bit awkward, but overall I thought it was a good idea. Editors do seem to have trouble with it at times, but I didn’t notice a huge problem. In the end, though, I don’t miss it as much as I thought I would. But this is also the greatest way in which Python has contributed to the modern coding community. For example, I’ve never, ever, ever seen a Python function definition like this. ``` def foo(arg1, arg2) do_stuff() do_some_more_stuff() while some_condition: do_some_conditional_stuff() for var in some_list: do_more_stuff_with(arg1) ``` …I wish I could say the same for Perl. 😉 > - explicit “self” parameter to methods I agree totally, completely, and unrelentingly. I didn’t like ‘this’ in C++, I didn’t like ‘my $self = shift;’ in Perl, and I really didn’t like Python’s ‘self’ shattering my dreams that Python might actually be an elegant OO language. > My (main) reason for liking Ruby’s aesthetics: > > - it’s terse Yes. All in all, I think that Python is a refreshingly “clean” language, syntactically. Ruby, however, I find both fun and useful. Tim Hammerquist > **···** > > – > If you had two people with a motive, and one of them > was alive, who would you arrest? > – Inspector Boot, “Theater of Blood” ---
**Author:** ![Luc\_Heinrich1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Luc\_Heinrich1](https://rubytalk.org/u/Luc_Heinrich1)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 09:53 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/14 "2002-09-01T09:53:40Z")
May I add: - lots of useless ‘\_’ everywhere… > **···** > > On dimanche, sep 1, 2002, at 03:12 Europe/Paris, Gavin Sinclair wrote: > > > - indentation-as-syntax > > - explicit “self” parameter to methods > > – > Luc Heinrich - [lucsky@mac.com](mailto:lucsky@mac.com) ---
**Author:** ![William\_Djaja\_Tjokr1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/87869e/32.png) [@William\_Djaja\_Tjokr1](https://rubytalk.org/u/William_Djaja_Tjokr1)\ **Post date:** [3 September 2002 16:22 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/15 "2002-09-03T16:22:31Z")
Hi, I just want to add that in my opinion, what really make Python so popular are, among other things: ``` 1) Indentation-based syntax 2) "There is only one way to do it" ``` I think 1) at the time Python was introduced (several years ago) was really “revolutionary” (well, yes, there were already several non-popular languages that were indentation-based such as ABC(?)), as all other mainstream languages such as C/C++, Java, and Perl have the free-form syntax. Making the syntax to be indentation-based really enforces clean coding, independent of the programmer’s discipline. Regarding 2), combined with 1), it really just makes all Python codes very consistent. We know what exactly to write to accomplish something, and it is very rare that we encounter a cryptic code. I am still grieving that Ruby carries Perl’s idiom of statement modifier ``` ..... if/unless/while/until ..... ``` Also, in Ruby there are several method synonyms, such as Array "indexes" and “indices”, which unnecessarily add more complications to the language. I think these are several reasons why not all people migrated from Python to Ruby. (And of course we all know the superiority of Ruby to Python, right? 🙂 ) I am just speculating, that, since Ruby was written after Python was introduced, if these two factors (among other things) have been taken into Ruby, probably Ruby had replaced Python to a great extent… Regards, Bill ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8c91f0/32.png) [@Tim\_Hammerquist2](https://rubytalk.org/u/Tim_Hammerquist2)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 00:37 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/16 "2002-09-01T00:37:45Z")
[vegai@nic.fi](mailto:vegai@nic.fi) graced us by uttering: [snippage] > (to the rest of you: that wasn’t a troll. Learn some manners, > even if this is usenet) You post did seem very troll-like, and I don’t fault anyone for taking it as such. You’re asking a roomful of Ruby users what they think of Python, and providing a criterion for which Python is well known and boasts highly of. What exactly did you expect to happen? However, if you thought this thread was abusive, please don’t ever, ever, ever go to comp.lang.perl.misc or comp.lang.smalltalk; you’ve been warned. Happy coding and safe posting! 😉 Tim Hammerquist > **···** > > – > Tegan’s always being posessed! She just wants attention. > – Adric, Doctor Who ---
**Author:** ![Gavin\_Sinclair](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/db5fbb/32.png) [@Gavin\_Sinclair](https://rubytalk.org/u/Gavin_Sinclair)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 03:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/17 "2002-09-01T03:18:32Z")
> Gavin Sinclair graced us by uttering: > > > My two reasons for disliking Python’s aesthetics: > > > > - indentation-as-syntax > > I’ve never found it difficult to read, and actually was really > excited about it. I found a few instances where it was a bit > awkward, but overall I thought it was a good idea. Editors do > seem to have trouble with it at times, but I didn’t notice a huge > problem. > > In the end, though, I don’t miss it as much as I thought I would. > > But this is also the greatest way in which Python has contributed > to the modern coding community. For example, I’ve never, ever, > ever seen a Python function definition like this. > > ``` > def foo(arg1, arg2) > do_stuff() > do_some_more_stuff() > while some_condition: > do_some_conditional_stuff() > for var in some_list: > do_more_stuff_with(arg1) > > ``` > > …I wish I could say the same for Perl. 😉 Since Perl has braces-as-syntax instead of invisible-undetectable-because-its-not-there-whitespace-as-syntax, you can get vim/emacs/whatever to reindent Perl for you. Of course, you never need to reindent Python code, except for when: - you want to change the indent level from 8 to 3, e.g. - you cut and paste some code into a loop My objection may not play out much in practice (I’d never practice it because of the explicit self parameter!), but it is a very strong (and stubborn) philosophical objection for me. > > - explicit “self” parameter to methods > > I agree totally, completely, and unrelentingly. I didn’t like > ‘this’ in C++, I didn’t like ‘my $self = shift;’ in Perl, and I > really didn’t like Python’s ‘self’ shattering my dreams that > Python might actually be an elegant OO language. Nicely put. > Tim Hammerquist I’ll conclude with one (new) feature from Python that makes me green with envy: list comprehensions. For those who don’t know what that means, here’s an example: Ruby: squares\_less\_than\_10 = numbers.find\_all{|i| i\<10}.map{|i| i^2} Python: squares\_less\_than\_10 = [x^2 for x in numbers if x \< 10] Don’t get me wrong, I love Ruby’s powerful array-manipulation capabilities. But list comprehensions are soooo cooool! Cheers, Gavin > **···** > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: “Tim Hammerquist” [tim@vegeta.ath.cx](mailto:tim@vegeta.ath.cx) ---
**Author:** ![Matt\_Gushee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9dc877/32.png) [@Matt\_Gushee](https://rubytalk.org/u/Matt_Gushee)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 10:32 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/18 "2002-09-01T10:32:57Z")
I beg to differ. The underscores in Python are far from useless: \_foo() is a (pseudo-) protected method\* \__bar() is a (pseudo-) private method\* **foobar** () is a voodoo method (unless it’s **init** or **del** ) class_ lets you use self-explanatory names without conflict with reserved words Now if you called them ugly, I’d be the first to agree with that. Personally I think the underscore character should be eradicated from the face of the earth. Call me weird, but I like the LISP convention of everything lowercase and hyphenated. - Python deliberately lacks true access control, the idea being that “we’re all adults here.” So ‘protected’ just means the name doesn’t get exported, but you can still access it in qualified form; ‘private’ means the name gets mangled so that you would have to write some really ugly code to get at it. > **···** > > On Sun, Sep 01, 2002 at 06:53:40PM +0900, Luc Heinrich wrote: > > > On dimanche, sep 1, 2002, at 03:12 Europe/Paris, Gavin Sinclair wrote: > > > > > - indentation-as-syntax > > > - explicit “self” parameter to methods > > > > May I add: > > > > - lots of useless ‘\_’ everywhere… > > – > Matt Gushee > Englewood, Colorado, USA > [mgushee@havenrock.com](mailto:mgushee@havenrock.com) > > > **[Home - Havenrock](http://www.havenrock.com/)** ---
**Author:** ![Phlip4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/90ced4/32.png) [@Phlip4](https://rubytalk.org/u/Phlip4)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 14:18 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/19 "2002-09-01T14:18:20Z")
Luc Heinrich wrote: > May I add: > > - lots of useless ‘\_’ everywhere… If you don’t delimit one kind of thing you must delimit another. So do you prefer even \>more\< useless @ everywhere?? > **···** > > – > Phlip > [I gotta have my orange juice. | Jesu, Juva](http://andstuff.org/HarryPotter) > – Have a 🙂 day – ---
**Author:** ![Kevin5](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbce88/32.png) [@Kevin5](https://rubytalk.org/u/Kevin5)\ **Post date:** [1 September 2002 19:38 UTC](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502/20 "2002-09-01T19:38:54Z")
> Hello. I’ve been checking into python lately quite a lot, and I > like its clean syntax. > > Then comes Ruby, which I find is inferior to python aesthetically. > > Comments? That, is a troll Sir. Which isn’t to say that it can’t also be a sincere question. Besides that detail, your tone calls your own manners into question. In this thread you’ve been called a troll once or twice, the possibility of you trolling was raised (and your question still addressed), and some folks have mocked your skill at trolling. These are all reasonable and expected results of your post to anyone who read it. There was also a polite and constructive discussion of Python that seemed to be what you were looking for. In my own damn opinion you were treated better than you deserved. Kevin > **···** > > > Thank you, sound reply – I’ll stick with my choice. > > > > (to the rest of you: that wasn’t a troll. Learn some manners, even > > if this is usenet) > > > > – > > V.K. [Next page](https://rubytalk.org/t/ruby-aesthetics/1502.md?page=2)