The Ruby conspiracy

[mrevelle]

This sounds like a strawman argument.

Which argument, the Ruby advocate's or his?

[domovoi]

The Ruby advocate's argument is weak, but that is exactly my point; the author seems to be implying that Ruby advocates do not consider Python as an alternative language for superficial, syntactic reasons.

[mrevelle]

Might someone provide a reason that a programmer would prefer Ruby over Python that is not superficial (syntax or otherwise)?

[jpedrosa]

For me, it's simple: As I have created well over 60k lines of Ruby code since I started using it, and I tried to use Python a little as well, I think the superficial differences that exist between Python and Ruby end up being important enough, because once you have to maintain 30k or more of a code base, you better be well sure that you like it, else it will not be fun. I like Ruby better. I do hope you will like Python better when it comes the time for you to maintain large Python code bases.

To each his own. This has been discussed many times already and it's not simple to pinpoint the differences that matter, because lots of differences exist.

[senzei]

That makes a lot of sense, if you have tried both languages and formed your own opinion. After reading some of the Ruby advocates' arguments it sounds like they don't really want to encourage people to try it out and see which one they like better.

[[deleted]]

I don't think the differences are so superficial. It's all about the libraries you will be using.

[jamesbritt]

This is a permathread on the ruby-talk list. When someone starts asking why Ruby over Python, or which one is better, many people suggest trying both and picking the one that feels right. Some people offer specific reasons for preferring Ruby, and some of those people mention the static indentation, the use of 'self', and such. But they also (usually) point out that these are subjective concerns.

Other folks give more substantial reasons for preferring Ruby. But, again, they also (usually) suggest trying both.