rantingrick wrote:
On Jun 22, 7:56 pm, Gregory Ewing <greg.ew...@canterbury.ac.nz> wrote:
Thomas Jollans wrote:
"Everything is an object" in both languages, or so they say.
That's really a meaningless statement, because it depends on
what you count as a "thing". But there is at least one thing
that is an object in Python but not in Ruby. There are no
stand-alone functions in Ruby, or callable objects in general.
The only way to invoke code is to call a method of some
object.
Although i will admit the chaining of methods compared to the nesting
of built in functions seems more linear-ly natural as in this case...
RUBY:
['one', 'two', 'three'].map{|x| x.capitalize}.join(',')
PYTHON
','.join(map(string.capitalize, ['one','two', 'three']))
','.join(x.capitalize() for x in ['one','two', 'three'])
','.join(map(lambda x:x.title(), ['one','two', 'three']))
...but i digress
This can be confusing to someone coming from Python, because
you can write what *look* deceptively like top-level function
definitions. But they actually become methods of class Object,
which is inherited by everything, and thus become implicitly
available in any other method.
Yes i call that "Ruby's Global Nightmare" and the folks over at
SketchUp are learning day by day how this nightmare is going to
undermine the Ruby API. Not only that, but since the API is for
scripting it seems more natural to use Pythonic namespaces so you can
write simple scripts very easily with one or two functions or complete
packages spanning multiple modules without fear of name clashes (ever
tried debugging that! 8^O). Of course you can create a module with
Ruby (see next comment)
[snip]
Napoleon once said "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a
mistake."! :-)
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
