[python-advocacy] Python vs Ruby on Apple site

[Bjørn Stabell]

On Nov 28, 2007, at 14:25, Ronald Oussoren wrote:
>> I've also cc'd Ronald Oussoren, who is probably the best bridge  
>> between the Python community and Apple (being the person who did  
>> all the work:-), and I'd also like to know whether he sees any bias  
>> here,
>
> I don't see any bias there, the article seems carefully balanced.
>
> BTW. the best way to get more documentation is writing it. That's  
> one thing the Ruby folks have gotten right and we haven't: a nice  
> website with current information.

Lack of documentation used to be Ruby and Rails's biggest weakness.   
Glad to hear it's changed.


Here are some of the issues I have with the article.  I'm not a  
language expert, so perhaps someone could correct me on the points I'm  
wrong.


[ What Are Ruby and Python? ]
> [ ... ]
>
> Although their similarities are striking, these scripting languages  
> do have some differences. While Python code can contain both objects  
> and built-in types, in Ruby everything is an object. There are no  
> primitive or built-in types, such as integers. Thus anything in Ruby  
> code can accept messages.
>
I thought the type/class unification in 2.2 did away with the big  
"built in types" issue?

> And you don’t have to declare variables to be of specific object  
> types.
>
I don't think you have to do this with Python, or any other  
dynamically types language either?

> To distinguish variables as global, local, instance, and class, Ruby  
> uses naming conventions.
>
(... like Perl, whereas Python has other scoping rules.)

> Ruby also has mix-in by modules and blocks, language features absent  
> in Python.
>
... but alas no mention of the features Python has that are missing  
from Ruby, e.g., generator expressions.

I guess the biggest difference is in the way Python uses indentation  
for scoping, whereas Ruby uses begin/end or {}.



[ The Standard Ruby Package + Standard Python Package ]

The Python packages that are included (except for numpy) are Mac or  
PyObjC packages.  The Ruby list is more complete with web framework  
packages and their dependents.  I can understand this is a marketing  
issue (it's nice to bundle Rails and all) but it just makes Python  
look like it can't be used for web development.  I guess it could be  
good to mention Zope, Plone, TurboGears/Pylons, and Django as  
alternatives.

NumPy's description might be better updated to "scientific computing:  
N-dimensional arrays, linear algebra, Fourier transforms, integration  
with Fortran" or just "scientific computing libraries".  Just saying   
"Array processing for numbers, strings, records, and objects" doesn't  
do it justice.



[ RubyOSA vs py-appscript ]

I'm sure it's true that RubyOSA is more complete than py-appscript,  
and this kind-of shines through with a more colorful language and  
additional examples missing from py-appscript.  At least, perhaps the  
py-appscript section could get an example too, similar to the  
"elegant" RubyOSA one :)


Rgds,
Bjorn