I think the article leaves out the main difference in Ruby vs Python. Ruby is built for humans, Python is built for machines. This example used to be illustrated on Ruby on Rail's website.
They are philosophical vastly different languages. This isn't to say one is better or worse over the other. Just use the right tool for the job. If I was going to do anything with machine learning or data analytics or LLM's, Python is hand's down the right tool for the job.
However, If I were to setup a full fledged web application that required a really short time to market with some complex features, I would probably choose Ruby because of Rails.
Given Python has a long history as a teaching language, that strikes me as the kind of grandiose statement without evidence which Perl fans used to be fond of. Even more so given there are approximately no “non-programmers” writing Ruby and enormous numbers writing Python in finance, data science, typography, EDA, and a billion other places; civilians seem to manage with Python just fine.
For what it’s worth, language _really_ built for humans probably looks more like Excel or Max/MSP (or both) than like any traditional language - at least those use our embedded spatial reasoning rather than laundering everything through a text serialization.
Funny, because I find Python much more readable than Ruby in most cases. The metaprogramming in Ruby has always struck me of bikeshedding novel programming idioms instead of focusing on simplicity. But that’s just my own opinion.
That's ontologically false isn't it? Ruby is built for humans by humans. Python is built for humans by humans. Given that humans use Python to write code that is then readable by machines, then certainly Python is built for humans.
Ruby is what Ruby developers mistakenly think makes not only them, but also all other developers happy, if they would only know.
For a lot of developers though, basking in the glory of ambiguous poetry, documented in some random funny blog, is not what puts more and broader smiles to their face while urgently trying to decipher their predecessors sensibilities, enshrined in mind bending meta-hairballs.
It is not just the job, some people just really don't like Ruby.
> I think the article leaves out the main difference in Ruby vs Python. Ruby is built for humans, Python is built for machines. This example used to be illustrated on Ruby on Rail's website.
> Just use the right tool for the job.
Oh, cut the crap. Both statements have nothing to do with reality. If we go by your definition, there’s no reason for Ruby, because Python will always be righter tools for the job.
https://rubyonrails.org/doctrine
They are philosophical vastly different languages. This isn't to say one is better or worse over the other. Just use the right tool for the job. If I was going to do anything with machine learning or data analytics or LLM's, Python is hand's down the right tool for the job.
However, If I were to setup a full fledged web application that required a really short time to market with some complex features, I would probably choose Ruby because of Rails.