Python misconceptions in IBM Ruby article...

[Conrad Schneiker]

Michael Hudson <mwh21 at cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:m3k8jytqw6.fsf at atrus.jesus.cam.ac.uk...
> John Farrell <jfarrell at mincom.com> writes:
>
> > Now, I do not propose that this be changed, and I do not claim that
> > other languages are better because of this. However I do claim that
there
> > is a tacked-on feeling about it.
>
> As I tried to explain in an earlier post , there is not really any
> other way to do it, given large gobs of the rest of Python.

The language-relative degree of necessity or optimality of a given feature
doesn't preclude it from still seeming tacked-on to many people--even to
people otherwise favorably inclined towards the language involved. And
saying that something feels tacked-on to many people isn't saying that that
something isn't useful. Saying that Python OO seems tacked-on is one reason
that some people prefer Ruby isn't saying that Python didn't do the right
thing in this area given what was done in others. Perl OO stuff seems
*really* tacked-on to me (not to mention ugly and un-Perlish), even though
AFAIK, "... there is not really any other way to do it, given large gobs of
the rest of ..." Perl. But even if this reason were true for Perl, I still
wouldn't like its OO any better. Since I need OO, I decided to start
learning Ruby instead, even though I recognize the well-demonstrated
usefulness of Perl (and even more so of Python) OO stuff. It's a matter of
trading off differing personal priorities against differing expected future
benefits.

But none of this is saying that Python didn't do what was best under the
circumstances, or that Python (not to mention some of its modules) isn't
still a pretty cool and very worthwhile and presently better documented
system for you and others to use, OK?

Conrad