What does Ruby have that Python doesn't, and vice versa? - Stack Overflow
Benefits of moving from Python to Ruby?
When it comes to scripting languages, the objective differences are very nuanced. Largely, it depends on what you want to do. Python, for example, is extremely popular in the data sciences. A complementary example for Ruby would be rapid application development with Ruby on Rails, a web framework that allows you to build web applications very quickly. Another example would be building an API using Ruby's Sinatra library. Python also has web frameworks, so it's not as if Ruby has an exclusive claim to this benefit, but many developers find tools like Ruby on Rails and Sinatra very satisfying and beneficial to work with.
My recommendation would be to give Ruby an honest shot. Don't make the mistake of simply trying to write Python code using Ruby. Really dig in to what makes Ruby, Ruby. If you enjoy it, then you've added another language to your tool belt. If you don't, you might walk away with some ideas about development that you can apply to Python.
More on reddit.comRuby vs. Python comes down to the for loop
Your python example is unnecessarily complicated. You can achieve the exact same thing just as simple as you would in your Ruby example. Perhaps you are not aware of the existence of "yield" in python?
class Stuff:
def __init__(self):
self.a_list = [1, 2, 3, 4]
def __iter__(self):
for val in self.a_list:
yield val More on reddit.com Python vs Ruby! Which is easier?
Having used both, I'd say Ruby, especially if you're already an experienced programmer who's more used to C syntax. Python feels restrictive to me, Ruby has powers that reveal themselves as you learn more. But neither are my preferred language.
More on reddit.comIs Ruby better than Python?
Which is easier, Ruby or Python?
Which is more popular, Ruby or Python?
Videos
Ruby has the concepts of blocks, which are essentially syntactic sugar around a section of code; they are a way to create closures and pass them to another method which may or may not use the block. A block can be invoked later on through a yield statement.
For example, a simple definition of an each method on Array might be something like:
class Array
def each
for i in self
yield(i) # If a block has been passed, control will be passed here.
end
end
end
Then you can invoke this like so:
# Add five to each element.
[1, 2, 3, 4].each{ |e| puts e + 5 }
> [6, 7, 8, 9]
Python has anonymous functions/closures/lambdas, but it doesn't quite have blocks since it's missing some of the useful syntactic sugar. However, there's at least one way to get it in an ad-hoc fashion. See, for example, here.
Python Example
Functions are first-class variables in Python. You can declare a function, pass it around as an object, and overwrite it:
def func(): print "hello"
def another_func(f): f()
another_func(func)
def func2(): print "goodbye"
func = func2
This is a fundamental feature of modern scripting languages. JavaScript and Lua do this, too. Ruby doesn't treat functions this way; naming a function calls it.
Of course, there are ways to do these things in Ruby, but they're not first-class operations. For example, you can wrap a function with Proc.new to treat it as a variable--but then it's no longer a function; it's an object with a "call" method.
Ruby's functions aren't first-class objects
Ruby functions aren't first-class objects. Functions must be wrapped in an object to pass them around; the resulting object can't be treated like a function. Functions can't be assigned in a first-class manner; instead, a function in its container object must be called to modify them.
def func; p "Hello" end
def another_func(f); method(f)[] end
another_func(:func) # => "Hello"
def func2; print "Goodbye!"
self.class.send(:define_method, :func, method(:func2))
func # => "Goodbye!"
method(:func).owner # => Object
func # => "Goodbye!"
self.func # => "Goodbye!"
Question from someone who invested much time in Python. What benefits Ruby has to convince to move? Instead continue with Python?
When it comes to scripting languages, the objective differences are very nuanced. Largely, it depends on what you want to do. Python, for example, is extremely popular in the data sciences. A complementary example for Ruby would be rapid application development with Ruby on Rails, a web framework that allows you to build web applications very quickly. Another example would be building an API using Ruby's Sinatra library. Python also has web frameworks, so it's not as if Ruby has an exclusive claim to this benefit, but many developers find tools like Ruby on Rails and Sinatra very satisfying and beneficial to work with.
My recommendation would be to give Ruby an honest shot. Don't make the mistake of simply trying to write Python code using Ruby. Really dig in to what makes Ruby, Ruby. If you enjoy it, then you've added another language to your tool belt. If you don't, you might walk away with some ideas about development that you can apply to Python.
Ruby delivers on the promise of being "optimized for programmer happiness." But I think that in order to experience that you have to become fairly immersed. In fact, some of the best parts seem outright offensive at first (question marks in method names?!). No language is perfect. But once you get past the idiosyncrasies, I honestly do think Ruby feels better. That's pretty esoteric, so I'll try to call out some specifics as well.
I agree with most of what's already been said, but I'll try to add a few things. In order of most to least significance (for me):
The standard library, especially with regard to collection methods. Want to slice/filter/sort/chunk an array/hash in some weird way? Ruby's standard library almost certainly supports it. So many amazing things are built-in across the board.
Not relying on indentation for scoping. It's one of my biggest beefs with Python. Yes, of course, code should be indented properly. But goodness....let my linter enforce that, not the interpreter. I don't love ruby's do/end keywords (I prefer curly-braces), but at least having a visual cue for end-block is a vast improvement over python.
A more consistent interface. Everything is an object, and you invoke methods on those objects. I think [].size just makes more intuitive sense than len([]).
Great readability boosts from things like question-marks or exclamation-points in method names (admittedly that felt gross and wrong at first), trailing if-statements, unless-conditionals, invoking methods without parens (though I only sanction this if not passing args).
A more helpful, less snobby community. 100% just my personal experience, maybe I've just had bad luck with pythonistas.
No __init__.py nonsense. Maybe that's fixed/improved in python3? But I hate it. In fact, I hate any use of dunders...littering the code with unreadable symbols.