Ruby misconceptions about Python
I just ran into a rather misleading article claiming to compare Ruby and Python. Let's please be done with some of these misconceptions:
Python 1.5.2 was released in april 1999. Talking about supposed design flaws in a version released in 1999 is a bit misleading. We're seven years past april 1999. Maybe the referenced article was written in 2000, in which case it's somewhat more understandable. I do not believe it was, as it talks about Python's support for sets, which was added later.
the opinion sketched about booleans is an opinion. Python did add an explicit
Falsequite recently, in Python 2.3 I believe (we're at 2.4 now), but 0 is still considered to be False (try
Yes, empty sets, like other empty sequences, are False in Python. Sets are built-in in Python 2.4, and were a library in Python 2.3, and empty sets are False in both. I happen to like empty sequences being False, but this particular opinion has the benefit in at least being original. :)
Let's please cut the crap about OO being a bolt-on in Python. This is FUD. It's probable that many people who repeat this meme are not even aware of enough deep OO issues to ever have to care even if it were true.
Python's OO implementation has indeed been improved in version 2.0 (released in 2001). That doesn't mean we haven't been happily using multiple inheritance in Python 1.5.2; the notion that it was critically flawed is rather exaggarated. I think this needs to be said to back up the OO bolted-on FUD. Like, "if OO in Python is bolted on, why has Python had multiple inheritance support since forever and Ruby doesn't?" Advocate's answer: "Well, that's because that multiple inheritance was critically flawed in versions as recent as 1.5.2!"
You can add and remove methods from classes in Python. This has been possible for years and years (including Python 1.5.2):
class Foo(object): pass def mymethod(self): print "hello world" foo = Foo() Foo.mymethod = mymethod foo.mymethod()
We were doing this with Zope in 1999. We think it tends to lead to maintainability nightmares and call this monkey-patching.
And you can also add methods to individual objects in Python, though this is indeed slightly more tricky.
Classes are types in Python too, if you inherit from
object. This has been the case since Python 2.0 (released, remember, in 2001?):
class Foo(object): pass foo = Foo() assert type(foo) is Foo
Python programs also have a great capacity for "reflection". Saying that Ruby can do it in a discussion comparing Ruby and Python is a bit misleading as you imply you can't do it in Python.
CPython's garbage collection is based on reference counting, which leads to predictable run-time behavior. For circular references CPython has had an additional garbage collection algorithm for years (since, I believe, Python 2.0 again, released in 2001...), so circular references aren't a problem.
Jython by the way uses Java's garbage collection system, and IronPython uses the CLR's. I believe the PyPy implementation of Python uses Boehm's, but they're still working on it and are making it pluggable, as this is PyPy after all. :)
del, by the way, just removes a reference and does not garbage collect right now, unless you only have a single reference to an object.
Taking care of reference counting when building C extensions is indeed difficult. Luckily Python has access to automatic binding generator tools like Swig which take care of it, or systems like Pyrex which let you write C extensions in a Python syntax. I wrote a full suite of advanced libxml2 bindings (lxml) for Python with Pyrex and I didn't need to worry about reference counting.
I wonder how Ruby deals with the interaction between its garbage collection and C libraries that use malloc? I can imagine this might sometimes make things a bit more difficult.
the author of the article claimed they got more sophisticated as a programmer, and Python seemed less wonderful and Ruby seemed more attractive. That may be more a reflection of the personal evolution of the programmer than the capacity of the languages. I think this is so because the author was clearly not aware of many of the features that Python actually has when he was a predominantly programming in Python.
So, Ruby advocates, please consider stopping to spread the following misconceptions about Python:
Python's OO is bolted on. It's not bolted on. This misconception is a mismash between FUD and seriously outdated notions of Python's OO support.
Python just is a multi-paradigm language with great OO support. You can do insanely advanced OO stuff in Python, including changing methods on classes at runtime, metaclasses, the works. And yes, you can do multiple inheritance in Python.
I've never had to write a metaclass personally, by the way. Have you, Ruby programmer who claims Python's OO is bolted on?
Python has no garbage collection. It does. This is an outdated notion about CPython, never true for other implementations.
If you want to advocate Ruby over Python, advocate things like support for anonymous blocks. That's something neat that Python actually doesn't have.