[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software

Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

comp.lang.ruby

Re: Python for Fortran programmers

claird

2/28/2006 12:08:00 PM

In article <y7QIf.39$9r.6@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
.
.
.
>Ruby should be a better fit for the typical Fortran programmer. I am
>surprised Ruby is not more the standard scripting language for
>scientists. At least some people who know both say that Ruby is better
>even though Python is (at least for now) more popular.
.
.
.
Please help me understand what you're writing here. I *think*
you're saying that Ruby is easier for Fortraneers to learn at
the syntactic level than Python. I can well imagine that.

There's a distinct meaning of "better fit", though, that I want
to highlight. I propose that Python has established its "fitness"
through the record of successful projects implemented as
Python-Fortran *collaborations*. There are several aspects to
these realizations of partnerships between a couple of different
languages:
A. It might well be that two languages need a little
distance between themselves syntactically to
"marry" well; if they're too similar at this level,
there's no gain to a division of labor between
them.
B. Python has a strong tradition of "playing nicely"
with outside resources. It was one of Python's
prominent initial goals, back at its invention in
the late '80s. Ruby also aims to do better at
this than, for example, Perl, but, as near as I
can tell, the Ruby community has never emphasized
cooperation with other languages as much as have
Pythonistas.
C. At a technical level, I believe it remains easier
to bind Python and Fortran than to do so with Ruby
and Fortran.

My conclusion: there are valid reasons, beyond "popularity", to
fit Python and Fortran together.
1 Answer

ptkwt

2/28/2006 6:21:00 PM

0

In article <b3qdd3-dfr.ln1@lairds.us>, Cameron Laird <claird@lairds.us> wrote:
>In article <y7QIf.39$9r.6@mencken.net.nih.gov>,
>Joe Krahn <krahn@niehs.nih.gov> wrote:
> .
> .
> .
>>Ruby should be a better fit for the typical Fortran programmer. I am
>>surprised Ruby is not more the standard scripting language for
>>scientists. At least some people who know both say that Ruby is better
>>even though Python is (at least for now) more popular.
> .
> .
> .
>Please help me understand what you're writing here. I *think*
>you're saying that Ruby is easier for Fortraneers to learn at
>the syntactic level than Python. I can well imagine that.
>
>There's a distinct meaning of "better fit", though, that I want
>to highlight. I propose that Python has established its "fitness"
>through the record of successful projects implemented as
>Python-Fortran *collaborations*.

This is because Python was there earlier.

> There are several aspects to
>these realizations of partnerships between a couple of different
>languages:
>A. It might well be that two languages need a little
> distance between themselves syntactically to
> "marry" well; if they're too similar at this level,
> there's no gain to a division of labor between
> them.

Maybe so, but I don't see how Ruby is anymore Fortran-like than Python ;-)

>B. Python has a strong tradition of "playing nicely"
> with outside resources. It was one of Python's
> prominent initial goals, back at its invention in
> the late '80s. Ruby also aims to do better at
> this than, for example, Perl, but, as near as I
> can tell, the Ruby community has never emphasized
> cooperation with other languages as much as have
> Pythonistas.
>C. At a technical level, I believe it remains easier
> to bind Python and Fortran than to do so with Ruby
> and Fortran.

There are lots of tools like the dl library, Inline::C (Inline::Fortran
coming?) available in Ruby as well. I forget the details, but didn't someone
earlier in this thread successfully create a Ruby<->Fortran bridge ?

Phil