>>>>> "Seth" == Seth Kurtzberg <seth / cql.com> writes:

    Seth> I don't think I would say that python has a lisp slant.  In
    Seth> fact, ruby has more functional programming syntax (e.g. list
    Seth> processing) than python.  Python is a procedural language.

It's amazing to see how clueless people here can be, and still offer
their opinions on the differences b/w the languages.

Python has first class functions, Ruby doesn't. And yet ruby "has more
functional programming syntax"? And it has, take this, "list
processing"?

    Seth> OO was hacked onto Python.  It isn't terrible, but it isn't
    Seth> really OO either.

Wow. I'm speechless.

Ruby is not more OO than Python - actually, I tend to think Ruby's OO
is crippled by not having functions as first class objects.

It's funny, I've chatted with various ruby people on IRC (on unrelated
newsgrops), and they like to say that feature-this-or-that in Python
is a hack. When questioned further, it appears that the feature is
exactly equivalent to the Ruby counterpart. The Ruby guy just never
learned it, because he blindly believed something he heard from
another Ruby guy.

I apologize if this entered the realm of ad hominem. Such outrageous
statements, esp. when pronounced with such vigour, just can't go
uncontested. I just innocently stumbled here looking for some juicy
April Fool's pranks, and here's what I see...

I would like to suggest people take a look at a quite independent
comparison page at:

http://userlinux.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?RubyPython

Instead of the ancient page, comparing ancient version of ruby with an
ancient version of Python that Ruby people like to refer people to.

-- 
Ville Vainio   http://tinyurl.com/2prnb