Ruby vs Python

Hello everyone,
I would like to start a small debate Between Python and Ruby. Both are valid we know But I want to know and understand your reason for Supporting either of the language

Here is a Small Description About the Both Languages

Ruby
Ruby is a dynamic, reflective, general purpose object-oriented programming language that combines syntax inspired by Perl with Smalltalk-like features. Ruby originated in Japan during the mid-1990s and was initially developed and designed by Yukihiro "Matz" Matsumoto. It is based on Perl, Smalltalk, Eiffel, Ada, and Lisp. Ruby supports multiple programming paradigms, including functional, object oriented, imperative and reflective. It also has a dynamic type system and automatic memory management; it is therefore similar in varying respects to Python, Perl, Lisp, Dylan, and CLU.

Python
Python is a general-purpose high-level programming language. Its design philosophy emphasizes code readability.Python's core syntax and semantics are minimalistic, while the standard library is large and comprehensive. Its use of whitespace as block delimiters is unusual among popular programming languages.Python supports multiple programming paradigms (primarily object oriented, imperative, and functional) and features a fully dynamic type system and automatic memory management, similar to Perl, Ruby, Scheme, and Tcl. Like other dynamic languages, Python is often used as a scripting language.

source-Wikipedia

Hello everyone,

I do not have an intensive practice of these two syntaxes. But my little experiment I would look for Ruby. Python is closer to a Lisp without having neither the performance nor the expanded capacity. Its advantage is having a more conventional syntax as Lisp, and more 'algebraic concept. As for Ruby, Smalltalk is a good light. It is easily accessible and intuitive enough for beginners. The performances are not very good, by against. But in both cases, the curse remains in less reinvent many existing languages.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Modifier

Hello everyone,

I do not have an intensive practice of these two syntaxes. But my little experiment I would look for Ruby. Python is closer to a Lisp without having neither the performance nor the expanded capacity. Its advantage is having a more conventional syntax as Lisp, and more 'algebraic concept. As for Ruby, Smalltalk is a good light. It is easily accessible and intuitive enough for beginners. The performances are not very good, by against. But in both cases, the curse remains in less reinvent many existing languages.

---

It seems to me that Ruby borrowed too much to Lisp, the same words of its designer. I had read that somewhere. As against it is true that Ruby is clearly influenced by Smalltalk, which is not the case with Python.

We must first define what a language. Literally, a means of expression. Take example the English language, reading a dictionary we find that English words are defined in foriegn language. We can achieve the same level of expression of languages. Namely: to define or redefine all or part of the language itself. Eg Lisp macro system Smalltalk object homogeneous type, see the Guidelines for compiling a good old Nantucket / Clipper, famous file. Ch. There are other examples. Regarding Python and Ruby, this capacity is not actually present, not so clearly formalized and integrated. But it is better than the GW-Basic, is evident. This statement, regardless of language can claim to be both a real language, rivaling the speed of C + +, provide a means to extend framed style macro and have a maturity unmatched with a commercial offer rich and open source.

Yes we are talking about Lisp, no doubt Lisp ah .... We talked about often on this forum. It is sometimes seen as a dinosaur, then in my humble opinion, is a language which is ahead of its time Oh and I would even add a standard language, with a standard graphics library (CLIM) except what is error or omission on my part, unique.

It may also include Smalltalk: VisualWorks, Object Studio, Squeak, Smalltalk X, VisualAge Smalltalk active instantiations, Smalltalk MT bomb in terms of speed, and I forget many three or four ... Otherwise, apart from the problem of performance, although as good as Ruby or Python core, we have the killer semantics: Rebol. Unrivaled on the market, if the performance improves significantly, as announced with the management of multi-task, it will be the language. A real language. Rebol is exactly what was reversible creators of Python, Ruby, and many other smaller developments in the genre, without ever being able to compete with the power of semantic Rebol.

Hum I did not know that Squeak was ANSI standard (that is what I mean not standard) or even "Smalltalk ANSI compliant" Seriously, there is a graphics library Smalltak standard? Can you dispel my ignorance on this subject? I quite agree Rebol. What has failed is mainly to be open to become popular. But I think that REBOL is open now? Am I wrong? As for clpython it shows once again, if necessary, that Lisp allows you to implement any

Smalltalk is being standardized and I think that it will take considerable time given the current pace. Regarding HCI, Smalltalk has just introduced the principle of notification, the proposed model and MVC. But actually, there is no standard library. CAIRO towards convergence is not impossible. The core remains the property Rebol and rightly so. The rest is open around ... why not.

it is a bit of a old topic but this good Python is good. Ruby is better. ... but Groovy is the best Python is good for the script, Ruby is more suitable for web ... though. I think it's just a matter of taste, personally syntax I do not like Python and Ruby and the advantage of having with him the famous Ruby On Rails and the community that goes with it to develop web applications .
In Groovy, it has the advantages of Ruby while running on a Java virtual machine. That asked for more!

Ruby has a strong web developer user base and thus lots of great libs for web development .Python and Ruby are very similar, but I think Python is behind Ruby in terms of supporting FP. I'm mainly a Python user, so there may be an aspect of Ruby-envy in what I have to say. Python doesn't support full continutations or even coroutines; instead it supports "generator" functions which create a kind of limited coroutine. A generator function can yield control to its caller with the "yield" keyword, but yielding is like returning in that only the generator itself can yield--another function cannot yield on the generator's behalf. Generators are wonderful for simplifying the implementation of iterators, since a generator is indistinguishable from a function that returns an iterator, but they tend to be awkward for other sorts of tasks.

Personally, I think this is what programming is all about, but we have become stuck with languages that are far too inflexible and syntax-heavy to allow us to program in this way. Even Ruby isn't as good for this style of programming as LispLanguage, SchemeLanguage or SmalltalkLanguage. Still, it's good to see the gradual take up of more expressive languages; Ruby plays nicer especially when you’re working in groups. With Python, a lot of the syntax is whitespace based and it determines what you are using for whitespace from the beginning of your code. This can be problematic when one developer uses four spaces for white space and another uses a tab.