Ruby vs. Python

This whole article is in essence comparing Django to Rails and not Python to Ruby.<p>Recently I spoke with Jacob Kaplan Moss in Pycon India, we had a great discussion wherein he appreciated the Rails philosophy much for its fast innovation. He even said that Django has in fact taken a lot of good things from the Rails world + other web frameworks too.<p>I agree that - Django development philosophy + community is somewhat conservative, slow in adopting and trying newer things.<p>But both are excellent frameworks. Use the right tool for the right job!<p>But the title is misleading - it should have been Ruby web vs Python web Patterns.

I was interested in the piece until he used the unnecessarily value-laden term "afraid of change". He could have said "wary of change" or something even less judgemental.<p>He also exaggerates the differences to make a point and comes over as a little too fan-boyish on the whole matter.<p>I do think there's a core of truth in the observation but he glosses over times where the Rails Team's attitude to change has caused genuine pain to the community as well as times where innovation has come from the Python web-framework community.

This meshes well with the article posted here yesterday written by one of the python core developers.<p>Nick Coghlan on the future of python[1]:<p>&#62; We're a conservative community by nature - we generally don't like blazing trails when it comes to language design. Instead, we're happy to let others rush ahead, letting them figure out where the pitfalls are, while we see what we can learn from their experience and integrate into Python's syntax, standard libraries, or the Python Package Index.<p>I think this is one of the main reasons the scientific community seems to use python more than ruby. I work for a scientific computing company that uses python and and almost none of our clients are even considering the move to python3.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2012/10/pythons-future-global-perspective.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.boredomandlaziness.org/2012/10/pythons-future-glo...</a>

...isn't the fact that Python's ecosystem being not so web-app-centric, with lots of libraries being design of any use, not specifically in web-apps (think classic desktop apps, scientific computing...), automatically leads to a slower release cycle, and the whole dependency web slows things down and keeps them stable?<p>...isn't it that web and mobile tech is moving at a faster pace than most other software (don't think this is good thing though...), and the whole Ruby ecosystem being web-centric stimulates the kind of mentality that keeps people wired and always upgrading, refactoring?<p>It's obvious that there's more in the Python world than web-frameworks ...but not so obvious that it's more in the Ruby world than Rails (not saying that it REALLY isn't, just the outside look of a pythonista)...

The smartest people I know, use tools incredibly well. They make amazing things with Ruby. They make amazing things with Python. They make amazing things in other languages. I'm blessed to know all of them.<p>None of them would share the opinion in this article, either by the offender, or the "reflector" on the differences.<p>I don't mean to be harsh. This article taught me nothing. It just spoke about one's interpretation, preference and using such a position to create a difference between us and them.<p>Pontificating on perceived differences fuels ignorance, intolerance, and more. These kinds of wars of fanatical religious interpretation are neither productive, unifying or helpful.<p>No language+framework will make you a superhero. Customers and users don't care what the hell we code in. Developers are a little selfish perhaps, when when we focus more on optimizing our own development experience, and hallucinating that there may be some "trickle down" effect to users being delighted, amazed and empowered because we automated yet another thing in our development stack.<p>No language+framework will make up for one's inability to find and connect with a need that customers have and would pay for, or tolerate being sold over to advertisers.<p>Most tools are pretty capable, most all have pretty have capable frameworks.

Wording aside, it's all about change.<p>Yes, the Python / Django community has a strong emphasis on backward compatibility - don't break things unless you have a very good reason. It works, and it works well, particularly in business where the app itself <i>isn't</i> the business.<p>I can understand wanting the cutting edge when the app <i>is</i> your business, when you eat, sleep, and breathe it, and your bottom line is tied to the app. But when you are just trying to get the work of the enterprise done, consistently, day after day, you don't want your tools to break just because you need the latest security updates, or would like to take advantage of new framework features.<p>This is something like comparing Gentoo to Debian. I've run both as enterprise servers. Today I use Debian, and won't use anything else, for fairly obvious reasons.<p>You will have to excuse the author for not being up on Python 3 developments, since that's not his world. That is actually proceeding very well, and is getting very close to critical mass. For the bulk of new development, I could switch to it today, particularly with the release of 3.3. In fact, once I'm sure that 3.3 is stable (a couple point releases), I will probably begin using it.

I'm still reading the article, but as a Rubyist who only knows a bit of Python, my impression is that the comparison of 1.8 vs 1.9 to Py2 vs Py3 is kind of unfair to Python... 1.9 wasn't THAT big a change in most respects, only a few backwards incompatible changes I recall, whereas my impression is Py3 has some pretty big changes in more substantial ways, including but not limited to syntax (Ruby 1,9's only syntax changes that come to mind were the JSON-style hashes and the stabby-lambda syntax, neither of which broke old syntax).<p>That's not that important except that it's the crux of his argument that Python is more conservative, so can anyone who knows both better expand on how substantial the changes were for an existing codebase in Python vs Ruby?<p>It also seems if Django still can't work on Py3, that's a huge deal breaker for many, as Rails has been able to use 1.9 since... I dunno, early 2.x?

While I think the author mischaracterizes the Python community as "afraid of change", there is a strong point in how rapidly the Ruby community--including really big projects like Rails--adopt the latest language release versus similarly large Python projects still not adopting Py3k after 3.5 years.<p>When working with anything Ruby-based, I hardly ever have to wonder whether or not Package X runs on the latest Ruby. With Python, it's been a somewhat default expectation with any given Package X that it won't run on anything greater than 2.7.<p>This is rather disappointing because there's so much to like about Python3, and I think it'd be much nicer to know that the community was supporting the latest releases by keeping great software up-to-date with the language.

"Python folks are really conservative and afraid of change" huh? Im still new to the language but I've seen many devs/companies embracing Python 3.<i>

I'm not really sure that this explains it at all. For one, there are sites similar to isitruby19.com - such as onpython3yet.com. What seems more likely to me is that python 3 was not as compelling of an upgrade until recently since a lot of stuff was back ported to 2.7. I don't know as much about ruby 1.9, but it is also seems possible that python 3 was simply more disruptive of a change.

Is there anybody with insight into both camps who could care to comment the relative amount of working need to port a major ruby library like rails from 1.8 to 1.9 compared to porting a major python library like numpy or django from 2.7 to 3.0.

The negativity over Python3 has stretched my patience with the community, even though I truly love the language. I'm not looking for my day-to-day language to change on a daily basis, but I don't want it to stagnate into Java, either. I feel like there is a large camp in the community who would prefer that.

A nice simple observation that i hope would elicit matured discussions instead of a language flame war.

I found this type very difficult to read, and added these styles which made it much cleaner. If you add these to your site, people will love you &#60;3<p>.entry-content p { font-size: 15px; line-height: 1.7em; color: #555; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; margin-bottom: 1.4em; }

I've been a Ruby (Rails) developer for about 4-5 years now, I guess. After a job change about a year ago, I've been thrown around to various different projects--I was mostly doing Sinatra stuff until earlier this year, but about four months ago I started working with Python (2.7).<p>I'll say right off the bat: I don't think my experience is really enough to judge an entire community on. I also feel pretty strongly--as I've read a bunch of articles on Python from a number of perspectives while learning about it--that there are a variety of perspectives within the Python community, some more conservative, some less. In fact, it may be harder to characterize the Python community with a broad brush than the Ruby community (although I live in Japan, and meeting some of the old-school Japanese Ruby coders shifts your perspective a lot...but that's another story).<p>What I will say, however, is that there are aspects of the community that correspond very much to the stereotypes. More to the point, there are folks who use the talking points within the Python community as an excuse for really foolish practices.<p>For example, I work with a developer who insists that you should do your damnedest to use nothing outside of the standard Python library. So he ends up writing his own web framework from scratch (!) rather than using Django, or anything really--we are on raw webob/webapp2. This has something to do with, in his words, "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."<p>He will also turn code into long blocks of if/else statements because he insists this is easier to grasp; and Python code should be readable..."Explicit is better than implicit. Simple is better than complex." Etc. etc.<p>The Ruby community has its own normative qualities, I won't deny (I...kinda agree with Zed Shaw: <a href="http://learncodethehardway.org/blog/AUG_19_2012.html" rel="nofollow">http://learncodethehardway.org/blog/AUG_19_2012.html</a>). But my experience roughly corresponds to the original article's perspective: Ruby, as a community, tends to have a more forward thinking, "break it and fix it quick" perspective. And as far as Rails at least, testing is entrenched, which I think is a good thing. Generally speaking, experimentation is good, and conservatism can get stuffed.<p>I don't think Python is a bad language. But I personally think having these philosophical statements like "the Zen of Python" and "Pythonic" and whatnot is actually poisonous to the community as a whole. It promotes a certain type of dogmatic thinking that I think is really harmful--even if the ideas expressed are correct! It becomes easy for bad programmers (or good ones who haven't had their ass kicked in a while) to fall back on when they don't feel like challenging themselves.<p>Also, this is kind of neither here nor there but functional programming paradigms in Python suck. Well, maybe 3.x is better, I haven't really checked it out in depth yet...<p>(Edit: sorry that last bit about functional programming in Python was a cheap shot, with no bearing on the conversation at hand...)

Another Ruby vs Python post. I wrote a few about 4 years ago, and so has everyone else. It seems to be a Rubyist/Pythonist's version of a Bar Mitzvah.

Nice article mr. schürre :)

They are both pretty enjoyable languages. Every now and then I find myself missing one Python feature when I develop in Ruby (and vice-versa), but overall I would recommend both of them equally to someone who wants to get started in web development.