Curt Hibbs wrote:
> Edgardo Hames wrote:
> 
>>On Thu, 21 Oct 2004 00:59:50 +0900, James Britt
>><jamesunderbarb / neurogami.com> wrote:
>>
>>>For the latter, I'm not versed enough in Smalltalk, Python, or whatever
>>>else gets tossed in to some algebraic Ruby description to give any
>>>follow-up detail.  And I've heard people say, "If it's so much like X,
>>>why not just use X?"
>>>
>>
>>Given that Ruby comes from Perl and Smalltalk, why do some people keep
>>comparing Ruby and Python all the time? We already know which one is
>>better ;)
>>Do they share a similar background (besides the usually mentioned
>>similarities).
> 
> 
> They are both dynamic, typeless, OO languages. If that is what you are
> looking for (when you don't know any thing else), then both will quickly
> become targets for further investigation.
> 
> I would like to think that those without any existing vested interest in
> Python would end up choosing Ruby. At least I hope I'm right!  :-)

I, for one, dislike Python for various reasons. However, both Python and 
Ruby exist, and are both successful, because they fit different people's 
ways of thinking about the world. Ruby fits my way of thinking. Python 
doesn't. For a Python fan, it is doubtless the other way around.

I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I don't think Ruby is 
out to displace Python. In fact, I don't think it ever could, just 
because there are lots of people for whom Python is a better fit than 
Ruby is. That's not blasphemy, just honest talk. ;)

- Jamis


-- 
Jamis Buck
jgb3 / email.byu.edu
http://www.jamisbuck.org/jamis