Asp Forum - The real Ruby vs. Python.

Abe Vionas_MailingList

10/27/2004 2:11:00 PM

What it comes down to is what it's coming down to for
me... platform maturity.

Python on windows has a broad range of libraries
available for anything you could ever dream of:
Apache, Java, Email, Protocols, GTK, Qt, Tk, OpenGL,
PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc etc etc. As far as Python
library availability for Linux, I really don't know,
as I was only looking for windows stuff last night. My
feeling is that while not being quite as comprehensive
as it's windows offerings it still offers a good
depth.

Ruby, on the other hand, while it has a comprehensive
offering on the Linux platform, is hamstrung on
windows by it's lack in important areas. If libraries
exist, they more often then not are NOT being actively
maintained (my research last night indicated that by
and large more Python libraries are continually
actively maintained). This last point is important
because at one time or another Ruby has HAD libraries
to cover any need, but without active maintenance they
are nearly worthless. I for one will not even look at
a library that hasn't had a release in 2004.

So, this is what it comes down to for me... Which
language offers what I need in terms of libraries? I
decided to go looking after having an excrutiating
time finding just Ruby FastCGI, mod_ruby, and
PostgreSQL libraries which would actually work on
Windows - forget being maintained at all. No luck
though. Even a post to the Ruby-Talk list asking for
help with an attempt to install FastCGI for Ruby
yielded only one reply.

Finally, while the Ruby Gem system is exceptionally
easy to work with and a real boon to Ruby, it doesn't
quite match the ease of installing ANY given Python
library. Every Python windows library for the most
part comes with a windows installer (exe or msi).

Keep in mind that it may be more doable to run Ruby on
windows given substantial C programming/compiling
experience, I don't know. Obviously, if I had the
experience to satisfy that statement I would be able
to answer my own question. : -)

So, for those of us who aren't C gurus and don't run
Linux, Python seems to win out when compared to Ruby.
Which is unfortunate because I really love Ruby, and
don't like a number of Python elements. However,
having the capabilities I need is much more important
than syntax preferences at the moment.

Sadly, in order for Ruby to really take over the world
it will require a more substantial focus on providing
windows compatible libraries and maintaining those
libraries. If Ruby continues to be a Linux-centric
language... I don't know. It just seems to me fairly
obvious that in order to have true dominance you have
to meet the needs of the major platforms. Python does
this moreso then Ruby. And believe me, I wish it were
the other way around.

I'll keep my eye on Ruby, and return when it offers
the essentials I require. But until then I'll be
laboring under a hot Python sun.

Regards, Abe Vionas

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.co...

75 Answers

James Gray

10/27/2004 2:23:00 PM

On Oct 27, 2004, at 9:11 AM, Abe Vionas_MailingList wrote:

> I for one will not even look at
> a library that hasn't had a release in 2004.

This is a very strange comment, in my opinion. A library may simply
function as intended and thus, not need an update.

> So, this is what it comes down to for me... Which
> language offers what I need in terms of libraries?

If you're chief interest is an impressive store of modules, I seriously
doubt anything tops the CPAN.

James Edward Gray II

David Ross

10/27/2004 2:29:00 PM

Abe Vionas_MailingList wrote:

>What it comes down to is what it's coming down to for
>me... platform maturity.
>
>Python on windows has a broad range of libraries
>available for anything you could ever dream of:
>Apache, Java, Email, Protocols, GTK, Qt, Tk, OpenGL,
>PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc etc etc. As far as Python
>library availability for Linux, I really don't know,
>as I was only looking for windows stuff last night. My
>feeling is that while not being quite as comprehensive
>as it's windows offerings it still offers a good
>depth.
>
>Ruby, on the other hand, while it has a comprehensive
>offering on the Linux platform, is hamstrung on
>windows by it's lack in important areas. If libraries
>exist, they more often then not are NOT being actively
>maintained (my research last night indicated that by
>and large more Python libraries are continually
>actively maintained). This last point is important
>because at one time or another Ruby has HAD libraries
>to cover any need, but without active maintenance they
>are nearly worthless. I for one will not even look at
>a library that hasn't had a release in 2004.
>
>
>
Binary releases are sometimes a problem, most of us are unix users,
there are some windows users. I think a few need to get together and
compile windows binaries. Hopefully, I will be able to continue to have
access to a win2k machine and compile much for the RPA ruby packaging
system. Sorry it didnt work out for you. I will be having a GUI for RPA
soon. I'm the type of person who does think about Windows users and GUIs
for the people who might not know typical compiling routines. Some
linuxes just have a packaging system for them to do it for them, I have
BSD. I know its not easy on windows, I will get some effort into helping
RPA witht he GUI and compiling windows binaries.

What exactly are you needing? What type of developer are you? and What
are the type of modules do you regularly use on Windows?

I'm not a frequent windows developer, but I do know a great deal about
Windows programming. Effort to solve the Windows area is underway.

>So, this is what it comes down to for me... Which
>language offers what I need in terms of libraries? I
>decided to go looking after having an excrutiating
>time finding just Ruby FastCGI, mod_ruby, and
>PostgreSQL libraries which would actually work on
>Windows - forget being maintained at all. No luck
>though. Even a post to the Ruby-Talk list asking for
>help with an attempt to install FastCGI for Ruby
>yielded only one reply.
>
>
>
I seen your question, I didn't know the answer though. Did you try the
maintainer?

>Finally, while the Ruby Gem system is exceptionally
>easy to work with and a real boon to Ruby, it doesn't
>quite match the ease of installing ANY given Python
>library. Every Python windows library for the most
>part comes with a windows installer (exe or msi).
>
>
Would you rather have a GUI, and/or executables which can be installed?
hmm thoughts for RPA

>Keep in mind that it may be more doable to run Ruby on
>windows given substantial C programming/compiling
>experience, I don't know. Obviously, if I had the
>experience to satisfy that statement I would be able
>to answer my own question. : -)
>
>
No problem. What problems were you having, besides fastcgi, and I can
look in to it on my spare time.

>So, for those of us who aren't C gurus and don't run
>Linux, Python seems to win out when compared to Ruby.
>Which is unfortunate because I really love Ruby, and
>don't like a number of Python elements. However,
>having the capabilities I need is much more important
>than syntax preferences at the moment.
>
>Sadly, in order for Ruby to really take over the world
>it will require a more substantial focus on providing
>windows compatible libraries and maintaining those
>libraries. If Ruby continues to be a Linux-centric
>language... I don't know. It just seems to me fairly
>obvious that in order to have true dominance you have
>to meet the needs of the major platforms. Python does
>this moreso then Ruby. And believe me, I wish it were
>the other way around.
>
>

please use the term, unix-centric. I'm a BSDuser :) Thanks.

Also, I agree, Ruby is more towards unix, some of the developers dislike
programming on windows, not mentioning any names but he knows who he is
:). Its not so much that libraries are unix-centric, but someone needs
to compile the libraries on Windows. Most libraries already work well
with windows, but its a compiling issue.

>I'll keep my eye on Ruby, and return when it offers
>the essentials I require. But until then I'll be
>laboring under a hot Python sun.
>
>Regards, Abe Vionas
>
>
>
Maybe sometime in the future it will get better for Windows users, we
can only hope.
If you have any questions, drop me an email.

David Ross
--
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyar...

Alexander Kellett

10/27/2004 2:40:00 PM

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:11:19PM +0900, Abe Vionas_MailingList wrote:
> I'll keep my eye on Ruby, and return when it offers
> the essentials I require. But until then I'll be
> laboring under a hot Python sun.

you make the point excellently.
noone takes on the job, and therefore..
yeah. noone takes on the job.

:(

Alex

Howard Lewis Ship

10/27/2004 2:48:00 PM

I tried using the basic Ruby for windows package and got a few
mysterious errors ("readline.dll not found" when running irb).

I backed that out and used Cygwin to install ruby. Now it runs perfectly.

I was able to install RubyGems and start exploring that as well. It
didn't work with the "native" Ruby, but is completely seamless (to my
cursory examination) when using Ruby under Cygwin.

Cygwin, by explantion, is a POSIX layer on top of Windows. It adds
aptget/rpm type functionality ... you download a small installer and
it downloads package descriptions for all the (Li|U)nixy stuff. It
handles downloading, installing, versioning, dependencies.

http://www.c...

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:11:19 +0900, Abe Vionas_MailingList
<mailinglist_abe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What it comes down to is what it's coming down to for
> me... platform maturity.
>
> Python on windows has a broad range of libraries
> available for anything you could ever dream of:
> Apache, Java, Email, Protocols, GTK, Qt, Tk, OpenGL,
> PostgreSQL, MySQL, etc etc etc. As far as Python
> library availability for Linux, I really don't know,
> as I was only looking for windows stuff last night. My
> feeling is that while not being quite as comprehensive
> as it's windows offerings it still offers a good
> depth.
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
http://howardlew...

Matt Mower

10/27/2004 2:52:00 PM

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:39:48 +0900, Alexander Kellett
<ruby-lists@lypanov.net> wrote:
> you make the point excellently.
> noone takes on the job, and therefore..
> yeah. noone takes on the job.
>

As a windows user I feel I should chip in here. I don't think I'm
feeling as unloved as the OP and I can live with a little unix
centricity but I wouldn't argue with Ruby becoming more Win-friendly.
I think the one-click installer is a great step in that direction but
I guess there are others.

I have windows programming experience but it's mostly either very old,
rusty, and not terribly relevant (e.g. C/C++ on Windows 3.0) or new
and shallow (VS.NET & C#). Most of my recent programming career has
been Java.

I'd like to help though and, if there is a Ruby on Windows community,
I would get involved.

Regards,

Matt

T. Onoma

10/27/2004 2:55:00 PM

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 10:11 am, Abe Vionas_MailingList wrote:
| Ruby, on the other hand, while it has a comprehensive
| offering on the Linux platform, is hamstrung on
| windows by it's lack in important areas. If libraries
| exist, they more often then not are NOT being actively
| maintained (my research last night indicated that by
| and large more Python libraries are continually
| actively maintained). This last point is important
| because at one time or another Ruby has HAD libraries
| to cover any need, but without active maintenance they
| are nearly worthless. I for one will not even look at
| a library that hasn't had a release in 2004.

Ironically that should be a good thing!

It's a poor indicator. A lib may be "relatively perfected" and need not be
changed ever again. People are too caught up on changing things. Get
something to work well, then start a new project.

But I do hear you --since the above is rarely ever done.

2 cents,
T.

David Ross

10/27/2004 3:03:00 PM

Matt Mower wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 23:39:48 +0900, Alexander Kellett
><ruby-lists@lypanov.net> wrote:
>
>
>>you make the point excellently.
>>noone takes on the job, and therefore..
>>yeah. noone takes on the job.
>>
>>
>>
>
>As a windows user I feel I should chip in here. I don't think I'm
>feeling as unloved as the OP and I can live with a little unix
>centricity but I wouldn't argue with Ruby becoming more Win-friendly.
>I think the one-click installer is a great step in that direction but
>I guess there are others.
>
>I have windows programming experience but it's mostly either very old,
>rusty, and not terribly relevant (e.g. C/C++ on Windows 3.0) or new
>and shallow (VS.NET & C#). Most of my recent programming career has
>been Java.
>
>I'd like to help though and, if there is a Ruby on Windows community,
>I would get involved.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt
>
>
>
>
Would you be willing to help me package binaries for RPA? :) I can help
you re-learn if needed.

David Ross
--
Hazzle free packages for Ruby?
RPA is available from http://www.rubyar...

T. Onoma

10/27/2004 3:07:00 PM

On Wednesday 27 October 2004 10:48 am, Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
| I tried using the basic Ruby for windows package and got a few
| mysterious errors ("readline.dll not found" when running irb).
|
| I backed that out and used Cygwin to install ruby. Now it runs perfectly.
|
| I was able to install RubyGems and start exploring that as well. It
| didn't work with the "native" Ruby, but is completely seamless (to my
| cursory examination) when using Ruby under Cygwin.
|
| Cygwin, by explantion, is a POSIX layer on top of Windows. It adds
| aptget/rpm type functionality ... you download a small installer and
| it downloads package descriptions for all the (Li|U)nixy stuff. It
| handles downloading, installing, versioning, dependencies.
|
| http://www.c...

Are there downsides to this approach for Windows users?

T.

Alexander Kellett

10/27/2004 3:11:00 PM

On Wed, Oct 27, 2004 at 11:51:33PM +0900, Matt Mower wrote:
> As a windows user I feel I should chip in here. I don't think I'm
> feeling as unloved as the OP and I can live with a little unix
> centricity but I wouldn't argue with Ruby becoming more Win-friendly.
> I think the one-click installer is a great step in that direction but
> I guess there are others.

the main problem is that even while i was on
windows i still had no clue how to help out,
build packages etc. i certainly don't have a
spare copy of vs.net or anything lying around
here so i'd be able to do, well, exactly nothing.

Alex

Alexander Kellett

10/27/2004 3:19:00 PM

On Thu, Oct 28, 2004 at 12:07:10AM +0900, trans. (T. Onoma) wrote:
> Are there downsides to this approach for Windows users?

cygwin is huge has an awful interface and
has severe problems with having multiple
cygwin1.dll's on the same system.

native compiles are by far my preference.
windows far from a single platform is *FAR*
more fragmented that linux will ever be.

how many ruby windows sub-platforms exist
now in total? four or is it five now? how
can anyone be expected to help when all of
them suck in there own little way? (e.g,
1-click doesn't have a standard package
thats in base ruby - curses)

Alex (who can't wait any longer to get his ibook and
remove both windows *and* linux at long last)

comp.lang.ruby

The real Ruby vs. Python.

Abe Vionas_MailingList

James Gray

David Ross

Alexander Kellett

Howard Lewis Ship

Matt Mower

T. Onoma

David Ross

T. Onoma

Alexander Kellett

Alexander Kellett

x Login to ForumsZone