[pmontra]

Ruby is not perfect but feels more logical and consistent.

"a.b".split(".") and ["a", "b"].join(".")

Ruby is bad if you want to do some functional programming but I find this logical: there are functional languages for that, which in turn are bad at object orientation. That's fine.

What I don't understand is Python doing OO by making us declare self in the method definitions as if it were a functional language that must explicitly carry around the state. Every other OO language knows how to handle self (JS is following a different OO model.) Python object orientation looks very low level. I was passing around self in C (no ++) to simulate OO: the pointer to the struct with the object data, function pointers and parent classes. Let's say that Python is very close to its implementation in C, but why?

[repsilat]

> but why?

In Python (almost?) any unqualified identifier you see in an expression is either a builtin function or it's defined/imported somewhere else in the file. I find Ruby a little stressful by comparison (without even getting into the awful cultural approval of defining the names of things procedurally, ensuring you'll never find where they came from...)

The lack of parens on function calls also adds uncertainty for me. I know in Python you can overload `__getattr__` and introduce just as much magic, but for the most part I can be confident that `a.b` doesn't do anything too crazy. That's the general trend for me -- Python is almost relentlessly boring, with a few little surprises that stick out mostly because everything else is so plain and sensible. Ruby is just a little crazier everywhere, partly because the language is a bit more eccentric and partly because the people who use it are all Ruby programmers :-)

[pmontra]

My why was about why one should design a language in that way and not think harder and make it look better, but in the early days of Python there weren't many other OO languages around, so I can understand that it could have been natural to go somewhat low level and mimic C (even with all those __s). Maybe some language went more high level and died because of that. Python passed the test of time so that (self): probably was a good idea at the end of the 80s / early 90s.

In the case of Ruby, you can't name a function (which is a method) without executing it. That's why () don't matter much. The optional () also make Ruby a good language to write DSLs. By the way, if you want to get a reference to a method, you must prepend it with a &, pretty much like in C. Ha! :-) This demonstrates that every language has its quirks. Or you can call a method by sending a message to its object like object.send(:method) using a symbol named after the method. That's more or less a reference to it, which can be metaprogrammed because symbols can be built from strings ("something".to_sym). Is that the "defining the names of things procedurally" you don't like? On the other side, I find stressful that in Python you have to enumerate all your imports, like in Java. It's the same in Ruby, but I'm almost always programming in Rails and it auto imports everything. All those imports in Django and Web2py are tiresome. I got naming clashes with Rails only a couple of times in 10 years but I missed imports many times in Django yesterday.

I learned Python after Ruby. My trajectory was BASIC in the 80s, Pascal, C, Perl, a little TCL, Java and JavaScript since their beginning, Ruby since Rails, a little Python and PHP a few years later, much less Perl now and almost nothing of what preceded it, some Elixir. I keep using Ruby and JS, I'm using Python now. I insist that compared to Pascal, Java and Ruby Python looks illogical and unnecessarily complex, but I can understand why people with a different history can feel like Ruby is eccentric. I remember when I demoed it to some PHP developer many years ago, he said it was like writing in English, which was surprising because it is not how it looks to me, but it felt flattering.

[cma]

I like the __'s, when listing methods you can immediately scan it and ignore all the built-in stuff if you want, to see what is special about this object.

In order to get "split" in ruby for a sequence, at least a one time, hopefully cleaned up by now, you end up mixing in some huge number of methods and made any method list in the console impossible to read.

[upquark]

> "a.b".split(".") and ["a", "b"].join(".")

Seems like a minor point to me, really. Sure, join could've been a member function of the list class, but that would prevent applying it to arbitrary iterables, no? In other words, delimiter.join(items) is more general than items.join(delimiter), because in the latter join must be a member function of the class of items or its ancestor class, and you won't be able to apply it to other iterable objects.

I haven't had much interaction with Ruby, but from my limited experience the syntax felt strictly less intuitive than Python. The only other languages where syntax felt more intuitive to me than Python is the ML family (with derivatives like OCaml, etc).

[klibertp]

> Seems like a minor point to me, really.

All the points raised here are minor and, mostly, subjective. Inability to comprehend this is the only reason such discussions are being repeated over and over again. It's utterly useless to discuss what syntax feels "natural" to whom - it's entirely dependent on what other languages (types of syntax, really) you already know.

There are some characteristics of syntax that we can discuss, for example, how large it is or what characters it tends to mainly use, but discussing these is apparently less fun than saying that something "feels illogical to me".

[upquark]

I meant "minor point" relative to the other points. It's all relative and subjective, of course, I never said otherwise.

Also, doesn't seem like you read the actual argument following the first sentence :)

[klibertp]

> Also, doesn't seem like you read the actual argument following the first sentence :)

Yeah, I was mainly referring to the @pmontra comments, like this one: "I find stressful that in Python you have to enumerate all your imports" and similar.

> Sure, join could've been a member function of the list class, but that would prevent applying it to arbitrary iterables, no?

Not true if your language supports multimethods, see Dylan, Common Lisp and CLOS or Nim and Julia for examples. Also not true if you add the "join" method high enough in the class hierarchy: as an example, in Pharo Smalltalk you have the following hierarchy: ProtoObject -> Object -> Collection -> SequencableCollection -> ArrayedCollection -> String with the "reduce" method being declared on Collection class (reduce being the easiest way to implement "join").

So in short: no. There are many interesting languages which implement various interesting techniques which solve various problems (like the so-called "Expression problem"); it's good to know about them even if you're not going to use them all that much (or at all).

> delimiter.join(items) is more general than items.join(delimiter)

But then you loose the ability to join a collection with a separator not being a String or you need to implement join even higher in the hierarchy (on Object most probably).

> The only other languages where syntax felt more intuitive to me

Yeah, this is what I'm campaigning against. This notion of "intuitiveness" is completely useless and is dependent on how your intuition was formed. All syntaxes of programming languages are artificial and man-made - there is nothing "natural" about them at all. In other words, they are all similarly alien and only get "intuitive" with practice. Programmers usually learn only a single syntax flavor during their careers, which is why they don't realize that the "intuitiveness" is just a function of familiarity. Learning some of the other kinds of syntax is good because it lets you observe how your "intuition" is shifting and changing in the process.

[upquark]

Your annoyingly patronizing tone aside, I'll try to address what you're saying.

> ...the class hierarchy: as an example, in Pharo Smalltalk you have the following hierarchy: ProtoObject -> Object -> Collection -> SequencableCollection -> ArrayedCollection -> String

Seems ridiculously over-engineered to me, but whatever, let's keep going..

> with the "reduce" method being declared on Collection class (reduce being the easiest way to implement "join").

'reduce' and 'join' are very different things. one is a generic function (aka fold, also exists in python as 'reduce'), the other is a string concatenation method that takes an iterable and produces a string. the latter can be implemented via the former, but they're not the same thing. no one's stopping you from using 'reduce' in Python instead of the built-in string member function 'join', btw.

> So in short: no. There are many interesting languages which implement various interesting techniques which solve various problems

Ugh, i give up :)