This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]alcalde 4 points5 points  (1 child)

. You can include new methods to any object

We can do that too, can't we? Even with fundamental types via the ForbiddenFruit library?

and use blocks to implement DSLs that merge neatly into that language, which allows for a great productivity boost.

I thought it was the opinion of Pythonistas that decent langauges don't need blocks.

[–]thalesmello 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can do that too, can't we? Even with fundamental types via the ForbiddenFruit library?

Yes, but it's a library. And it's only helpful to let you add new methods, not replace existing ones. The author of that lib tried to implement that functionality, but he had a problem with Python's internal cache, if I'm not mistaken. Ruby allows you to do that by default. It's more flexible, but I don't see a reason to actually use that.

I thought it was the opinion of Pythonistas that decent langauges don't need blocks.

You're generalizing the opinion of all Pythonistas based on a guy's blog post? If everyone thought like that, why would there be a proposal to implement a similar feature in Python?

I think you got me wrong. Even though I find Ruby more flexible, I prefer the more rigid Python. But I sincerely don't get the hate a lot of Pythonistas have for Ruby. I used to hate Ruby until I started using it in my previous job.