4 ms·
+1, the article is a 10-minute gloss at best and has virtually no content or analysis. I mean come on, just look at the 'conclusion': These languages are inte
by Torn 17y ago
+1, the article is a 10-minute gloss at best and has virtually no content or analysis.
I mean come on, just look at the 'conclusion':
These languages are interchangeable, especially for building web application. Neither are more awesome. They get the job done and they make programmers happy.
- davidw 17y agoHaving used both professionally, I think that's a pretty good conclusion, actually.
- Xichekolas 17y agoI'd agree with the conclusion, but I'd also agree with nudded - the article is nearly free of useful content. Listing popular libraries of each language does not a comparison make.
- Torn 17y agoIt's a fair (and quite reasonable) conclusion but the article in no way supports it.
- tetha 17y agoIn fact, Python and Ruby both are very high level, multiparadigm (oop, procedural, functional, ...) dynamic languages and the difference between them is pretty small. One is a bit more perlish, and one is focussing on a clear, deterministic syntax. Thus, I think the conclusion easily generalizes. As one wise man once said: Wether you prefer Python or Ruby depends mostly on which one you met first.
- roder 17y agoThe conclusion isn't wrong, but the content is weak for the evaluation. At this point in the Ruby VS Python conversation, my expectations for an evaluation are benchmarks of code that is algorithmically identical. If one language provides for a better algorithm than the other, I'd like to see those differences as well.
- didip 17y agoIt is intended to be a gloss over of functionality that I use frequently. If I want to write much more in-depth comparison then I would have written these (which I may in the future, these kind of blog post takes time to write): * Beautiful Soup vs Nokogiri/HPricot * Fabric vs Vlad * Paste vs Mongrel performance using proxy pass behind Nginx * (I am not going to write Rails vs Django)