Bob Calco (2001-11-27 04:04):

 
> 1. I like the interactive console, a la IDLE and PythonWin. Mainly because
> I'm prototyping as I go, I like to test things before I commit them to a
> code in script. I know there's IRB, but it doesn't seem as robust on Win32

I left an irb session running on my Win2k-notebook while I was working
on our book draft and came up to command line 2734 without noticing something
strange ... then holidays were over and I finally switched the thing off.

Also I never had installation problems, but I tried it only on NT4 and 2k and 98.

> 2. I like that I can use Visual C++ to write Python extensions. I'm not sure
> I have enough room on my laptop to get the whole cygwin environment
> installed that Ruby seems (again, based on the documentation) to mandate for
> writing extensions, which are *.so files even on Windows. Also, the Visual
> C++ extension API is fairly well thought out, I'm not yet comfortable with
> the Ruby API, mainly because I'm only functional (not proficient) with GCC.

someone around here said that the difference between .so and .dll is that
one ends in .so and the other in .dll. I have not tried this, though.

> 
> 3. Python's Windows extensions are all VERY WELL written and implented in
> the ActiveState distro, it's very robust, and a breeze to both use and
> create COM objects in Python. I used Ruby's win32ole package to play with
> automating word and excel, and it takes much longer for the win32ole package
> in Ruby to load the first time you use it than it does Python's win32com
> module. I also like the fact that Python's Win32 ole extensions let you
> generate a module based on a type library for "early binding" COM objects.
> But anyway.

There is currently work in progress to make Ruby a fully functional COM server.
You might want to check the list archives.

> 
> 4. I find Python's module/package architecture to be easy and intuitive. All
> I need is a silly little __init__.py (with or without package initialization
> code) in subdirectories of the Python21 root (which represent the hierarchy
> of the API I'm writing), and viola, I've got a package of modules that I can
> instantly test using the interactive console. I like the ability to import
> specific modules from a package, and not the whole thing, if I want to.

well, in ruby, you can
  require "some/very/strange/path/to/my/specialLibrary" without setting up
a "silly little" file, if the directories live in Ruby's lib-folder.

 
> All of that having been said, here's what I like about Ruby, and why I'd
> pick it over Python, but for those few things mentioned above:
> 
 
... don't forget the code blocks ... and the smile that creeps on your face
when your solution is not only working, but also elegant, nay, beautiful .-)

s.

-- 
Stefan Schmiedl
EDV-Beratung, Programmierung, Schulung
Loreleystr. 5, 94315 Straubing, Germany
Tel. (0 94 21) 74 01 06
Public Key: http://xss.de/stefan.public

shhhh ... I can't hear my code!