As of Ruby 1.9, I would dispute the "Ruby is slower than everything" case. There's lots of evidence to the contrary, e.g.
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marc Chantreux
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2013 11:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Python and Ruby
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 10:25:14AM -0500, Matthew Sherman wrote:
> Ok folks, we have veered into nonconstructive territory. How about we
> come back to the original question and help this person figure out
> what they need to about Ruby and Python so they can do well with what
> they want to work on.
comparing languages on objective criterias (especially when they are as close as ruby and python) isn't constructive.
but ok, let's try
* both claim to be very easy to learn (ruby by having a very nice
syntax, python by limitating the features from the syntax)
* writing python code is very boring when you come from featured.
langages like ruby or perl. nothing can be expressed a simple way.
* ruby is slow ... i mean: even for a dynamic language.
* both langages have libs for libraries for libraries but lack
something as robust and usefull as CPAN (and related tools)
* python has an equivalent of the perl PDL (scipy)
* python has Natural Language Toolkit (equivalent in other langages ?)
your basic goal | your langage
write/maintain faster | perl
reuse existing faster | python
learn faster | ruby
execute faster | you're probably screwed.
experiment lua, go, haskell, rust
Université de Strasbourg, Direction Informatique
14 Rue René Descartes,
67084 STRASBOURG CEDEX
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet"
-- Abraham Lincoln