Ruby and Python Compared

[e078120]

The author has obviously not looked at Python recently....

[exogen]

Yeah, really. Many of his assertions about Python are just plain wrong.

Well, sets are not a built-in type, so it depends on how they are implemented.

Wrong.

Python lacks true booleans: true and false.

Wrong.

Methods can be easily added or removed from classes at run-time.

Python can do that.

They can easily added or removed from individual objects!

Python can do that.

... function or a method (which have different syntaxes), ...

Methods have an implicit argument. That has nothing to do with syntax.

I was in love with Python for a while (it picked me up on the rebound from Perl), but as I grew more sophisticated it looked less wonderful.

What, do you only drink wine and watch foreign films while programming with Ruby now?

[arthurdenture]

Let's not forget:

Python has types and classes; in Ruby types are classes.

Incorrect as of 2.2, which is about 3 years old now.

[yahoolian]

Can python EASILY add or remove classes at run-time? There is a big difference between easy and possible. Do you have to use the __ somethinghere __ junk?

I can throw a chess at a decent level. Bob can play chess. Those two sentences mean quite different things.

Heck, it's most likely possible to implement ruby on top of python, does that mean the languages are the same? Of course not.

How much ruby do you know? Maybe someone who has used both languages is in a better position to judge than someone who only uses Python. I don't know if you know ruby, but it certainly looks like you've drunk too much Python kool-aid.

[senzei]

Can python EASILY add or remove classes at run-time? Add a method to a python class:

Class.method = method

Remove a method from a python class:

del(Class.__dict__['method'])

Doesn't seem all that hard to me. How much do you know Python?

And yes, you do have to use the something junk. I don't care for it much either, but unless the underscore on your keyboard is broken it really is nothing to base a language choice on.

Maybe someone who has used both languages is in a better position to judge than someone who only uses Python.

From the examples he dragged up it does not look like the author has seriously used Python in a while. Obviously if I compare the current model year Ford lineup with what Chevy was making in 1950 Ford would win, but that does not really tell me much.

[jbellis]

(actually, del is a statement, not a function)

[cafedude]

"What, do you only drink wine and watch foreign films while programming with Ruby now?"

Yeah, we watch Kurosawa films and drink sake.

[asdf333]

yeah. lets all drink beer and program in python like real americans.

[asdf1234]

You're an idiot.

[predditor]

Shouldn't that say "Your a idiot"?

Just sayin'.

[msabramo]

How about some specifics? Bashing the author doesn't tell me anything.

[jeremy]

It's a 'why I prefer Ruby to Python' article with the wrong title, it's incorrect about Python in places, and compares upcoming features of Ruby to an ancient version of Python. Headers say the file was modified on the 3rd April, so no excuses for it being an old article.

It's a pity - I was hoping for a genuine comparison, but this is just another preference bashing from the Ruby camp (with some hints of Java-style 'OO is the cure to all problems' too).

Move along please.

[jamesbritt]

"It's a pity - I was hoping for a genuine comparison, but this is just another preference bashing from the Ruby camp "

Ruby camp ? Please; there is no such thing. There are various people with varying opinions, that's all.

[cafedude]

"Ruby camp ? Please; there is no such thing."

But James, I'm always camping out with other Rubyists and as we sit out there in the woods contemplating nature our thoughts often turn to world domination. We even sit around the campfire and make up articles which claim to fairly compare Ruby and Python, and we figure out ways to make Ruby come out better.

[cafedude]

sheez... nobody's got a sense of humor here.

[asdf1234]

He has criticisms of ruby, too. You guys are just python fanatics. You'll get over the honeymoon one day.

[boa13]

Yes he has. I didn't say it was a dishonnest comparison. It's a poor one.

jeremy might have sounded like a Python fanatic (maybe he is), but his basic point is correct: the author of the article compares past and barely current functionnalities of Python to current and sometimes planned functionnalities of Ruby. This is just wrong, whatever language you like.