6 ms·

Python vs. Ruby: A Battle to The Death

42 points by ahmicro 16y ago

rbanffy 16y ago
The example for "If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea." was very enlightening. I always felt Ruby was a bit too irregular for my taste. Now I know why. On the Cucumber thing, there is something similar in Pyccuracy. The Yahoo office in São Paulo is using it a lot.
- sibsibsib 16y ago
  There is also a project called Lettuce. It isn't quite as 'natural language' as Cucumber, but the added syntax isn't too much and is still quite readable.
joakin 16y ago
Nice talk, but in the questions and answers it would be better to see people instead of the blog address all the time. +1 For the grammar graphs :)
ceci 16y ago
also listen to http://ontwik.com/ruby/david-hansson-why-ruby/ http://ontwik.com/ruby/david-hansson-why-ruby/, to add some context to this talk.
trebor 16y ago
So, Gary says both "I can't stand Ruby's Syntactic Flexibility" and "I wish Python had more Syntactic Flexibility." (Really, all he wants are blocks so that he can have RSpec, etc.) But he does point out some odd, and some good features of Ruby that are worth attention. Make up your mind, please. ;) His example that: >> x = Proc.new { 5} => #<Proc:0x00000001015f21a0@(irb):1> >> x() NoMethodError: undefined method `x' for main:Object from (irb):2 >> x[] => 5 >> x.call => 5 Is also a bit crazy: Proc.[] is an instance method of a Proc that is aliased to Proc.call (crazy as that may be); proc() is a language feature for calling an object's method (a proc isn't a method, it's an object--Proc.call is the method). And before you ask what about a method without an object, understand that they do not exist. There is a global object that receives all methods not associated with an object. >> def x >> p self >> end => nil >> y = Proc.new { p self } => #<Proc:0x00000001015ecf48@(irb):4> >> x() main => nil >> y.call main => nil And, in case you're confused about why y.call prints "main", the Proc's block is technically created within the scope of the calling or parent object. In other words, the block passed to the Proc is created in the main class and then delegated to the Proc instance--therefore when executed it belongs to, and references the scope it was created in: main. (A binding from the Proc itself is neither created, nor passed to the block. If it were the block would return the same Proc inspection from line 4.) And... the reason a "patch level release" (his words, not mine) added syntax is because 1.8.7 is a backport of new features from Ruby 1.9 down to Ruby 1.8. I don't claim to like or understand the version numbers, but the patch level is given like "ruby-1.9.2-p136" not as the third part of the number itself. /rant Sorry, I should stop here before I lose my whole morning.
- xtho 16y ago
  And before you ask what about a method without an object, understand that they do not exist. Technically, there are unbound methods (i.e. methods with no object) but you can't call them.
  - trebor 16y ago
    Technically they exist, but I think it's an oxymoron because it must be bound to be usable. To be honest, I still can't figure out a reason you'd ever use one. Do you have an idea of when they're useful?
  - stephencelis 16y ago
    Perhaps more technically, unbound methods _are_ objects (as are [bound] methods, procs, etc.).
    - xtho 16y ago
      You are right of course.
mixu 16y ago
Related: http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-to-the-death.html http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-... (blog post by the author) http://blog.peepcode.com/tutorials/2010/what-pythonistas-think-of-ruby http://blog.peepcode.com/tutorials/2010/what-pythonistas-thi... (Blog post about the video referred to by the author) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097723 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097723 (HN discussion about that blog post)
towelrod 16y ago
Money quote, at about 15:20: "The very attributes of Ruby that I find distasteful are what give rise to all the wonderful software that the Python world can never have. And vice versa -- the very thing that makes Python aesthetically pleasing to me is exactly what leads to not being able to do any of this cool stuff. Ever." This is after complaining about how complicated Ruby syntax is, but then showing how RSpec uses that malleable syntax to make what he considers to be beautiful code.
stcredzero 16y ago
Competition is good.
Bitmobrich 16y ago
Is any one else getting tired of these versus type articles?
- hippich 16y ago
  Yeah. 'cos Perl is the best =) (j/k)
- nagnatron 16y ago
  This one was actually interesting. Usually they are obvious and boring.
16s 16y ago
I use and like them both. I find Ruby more consistent and Python with better libs (for what I do). Either is a fine choice.
ot 16y ago
Lack of namespaces and monkeypatching (extending classes) are THE "features" that keep me from using ruby seriously every time I try to approach the language.
netghost 16y ago
Can't we just agree that both Python and Ruby are awesome and rant about Java some more? ;)
cgrubb 16y ago
Ruby overuses []. It is used in Array literals, but it is also an operator (i.e. a method with odd syntax) on several classes: Array, String, Fixnum, Bignum, Proc. In a language with dynamic typing, we should avoid having methods (or operators) with the same name and different function since calling nonexistent methods is how we catch errors. The [] operator on Proc was new to me. I don't like the [] on Fixnum and Bignum, which is a bit operation: x[y] := (x << y) & 1. Hence my fixes to Ruby would be: $ irb 001> add = lambda {|x,y| x+y} => #<Proc:0x0000010089ef30@(irb):1 (lambda)> 002> add[1,2] => 3 003> 1[2] => 0 004> class Proc; undef_method :[]; end => Proc 005> class Fixnum; undef_method :[]; end => Fixnum 006> class Bignum; undef_method :[]; end => Bignum 007> add[1,2] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for #<Proc:0x0000010089ef30@(irb):1 (lambda)> from (irb):7 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' 008> 1[2] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for 1:Fixnum from (irb):8 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' 009> (100**100)[1] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for #<Bignum:0x00000101116f50> from (irb):9 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' I'm also tempted to remove [] from String, but the usefulness probably outweighs the occasional confusion from thinking a String is an Array.

42 points by ahmicro 16y ago

The example for "If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea." was very enlightening. I always felt Ruby was a bit too irregular for my taste. Now I know why. On the Cucumber thing, there is something similar in Pyccuracy. The Yahoo office in São Paulo is using it a lot.

sibsibsib 16y ago
There is also a project called Lettuce. It isn't quite as 'natural language' as Cucumber, but the added syntax isn't too much and is still quite readable.

joakin 16y ago

Nice talk, but in the questions and answers it would be better to see people instead of the blog address all the time. +1 For the grammar graphs :)

ceci 16y ago

also listen to http://ontwik.com/ruby/david-hansson-why-ruby/ http://ontwik.com/ruby/david-hansson-why-ruby/, to add some context to this talk.

trebor 16y ago

So, Gary says both "I can't stand Ruby's Syntactic Flexibility" and "I wish Python had more Syntactic Flexibility." (Really, all he wants are blocks so that he can have RSpec, etc.) But he does point out some odd, and some good features of Ruby that are worth attention. Make up your mind, please. ;) His example that: >> x = Proc.new { 5} => #<Proc:0x00000001015f21a0@(irb):1> >> x() NoMethodError: undefined method `x' for main:Object from (irb):2 >> x[] => 5 >> x.call => 5 Is also a bit crazy: Proc.[] is an instance method of a Proc that is aliased to Proc.call (crazy as that may be); proc() is a language feature for calling an object's method (a proc isn't a method, it's an object--Proc.call is the method). And before you ask what about a method without an object, understand that they do not exist. There is a global object that receives all methods not associated with an object. >> def x >> p self >> end => nil >> y = Proc.new { p self } => #<Proc:0x00000001015ecf48@(irb):4> >> x() main => nil >> y.call main => nil And, in case you're confused about why y.call prints "main", the Proc's block is technically created within the scope of the calling or parent object. In other words, the block passed to the Proc is created in the main class and then delegated to the Proc instance--therefore when executed it belongs to, and references the scope it was created in: main. (A binding from the Proc itself is neither created, nor passed to the block. If it were the block would return the same Proc inspection from line 4.) And... the reason a "patch level release" (his words, not mine) added syntax is because 1.8.7 is a backport of new features from Ruby 1.9 down to Ruby 1.8. I don't claim to like or understand the version numbers, but the patch level is given like "ruby-1.9.2-p136" not as the third part of the number itself. /rant Sorry, I should stop here before I lose my whole morning.

xtho 16y ago
And before you ask what about a method without an object, understand that they do not exist. Technically, there are unbound methods (i.e. methods with no object) but you can't call them.
- trebor 16y ago
  Technically they exist, but I think it's an oxymoron because it must be bound to be usable. To be honest, I still can't figure out a reason you'd ever use one. Do you have an idea of when they're useful?
- stephencelis 16y ago
  Perhaps more technically, unbound methods _are_ objects (as are [bound] methods, procs, etc.).
  - xtho 16y ago
    You are right of course.

mixu 16y ago

Related: http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-to-the-death.html http://blog.extracheese.org/2010/02/python-vs-ruby-a-battle-... (blog post by the author) http://blog.peepcode.com/tutorials/2010/what-pythonistas-think-of-ruby http://blog.peepcode.com/tutorials/2010/what-pythonistas-thi... (Blog post about the video referred to by the author) http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097723 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1097723 (HN discussion about that blog post)

towelrod 16y ago

Money quote, at about 15:20: "The very attributes of Ruby that I find distasteful are what give rise to all the wonderful software that the Python world can never have. And vice versa -- the very thing that makes Python aesthetically pleasing to me is exactly what leads to not being able to do any of this cool stuff. Ever." This is after complaining about how complicated Ruby syntax is, but then showing how RSpec uses that malleable syntax to make what he considers to be beautiful code.

stcredzero 16y ago

Competition is good.

Bitmobrich 16y ago

Is any one else getting tired of these versus type articles?

hippich 16y ago
Yeah. 'cos Perl is the best =) (j/k)
nagnatron 16y ago
This one was actually interesting. Usually they are obvious and boring.

16s 16y ago

I use and like them both. I find Ruby more consistent and Python with better libs (for what I do). Either is a fine choice.

ot 16y ago

Lack of namespaces and monkeypatching (extending classes) are THE "features" that keep me from using ruby seriously every time I try to approach the language.

netghost 16y ago

Can't we just agree that both Python and Ruby are awesome and rant about Java some more? ;)

cgrubb 16y ago

Ruby overuses []. It is used in Array literals, but it is also an operator (i.e. a method with odd syntax) on several classes: Array, String, Fixnum, Bignum, Proc. In a language with dynamic typing, we should avoid having methods (or operators) with the same name and different function since calling nonexistent methods is how we catch errors. The [] operator on Proc was new to me. I don't like the [] on Fixnum and Bignum, which is a bit operation: x[y] := (x << y) & 1. Hence my fixes to Ruby would be: $ irb 001> add = lambda {|x,y| x+y} => #<Proc:0x0000010089ef30@(irb):1 (lambda)> 002> add[1,2] => 3 003> 1[2] => 0 004> class Proc; undef_method :[]; end => Proc 005> class Fixnum; undef_method :[]; end => Fixnum 006> class Bignum; undef_method :[]; end => Bignum 007> add[1,2] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for #<Proc:0x0000010089ef30@(irb):1 (lambda)> from (irb):7 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' 008> 1[2] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for 1:Fixnum from (irb):8 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' 009> (100**100)[1] NoMethodError: undefined method `[]' for #<Bignum:0x00000101116f50> from (irb):9 from /usr/local/bin/irb:12:in `<main>' I'm also tempted to remove [] from String, but the usefulness probably outweighs the occasional confusion from thinking a String is an Array.