Ross's list was great. I will add that for screen scraping, Ruby has
Mechanize <https://github.com/sparklemotion/mechanize>, which makes most
static page interaction pretty easy.
On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Jon P. Stroop <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> Why not learn both? As with spoken languages, knowing more than one makes
> it easier for you to think at a higher level of abstraction and therefore a
> better developer, and, as others have alluded to, will allow you to choose
> the 'right tool [framework, library, etc] for the right job'.
> Plus, as Giarlo said, they're not really that different.
> From: Code for Libraries [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Chris
> Fitzpatrick [[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 1:39 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Python and Ruby
> One thing to factor in is that if you learn ruby you run the risk of
> becoming one of those people who constantly talks,tweets,blogs, posts to
> this mailing list about how great ruby is. This can have a very negative
> impact on your work productivity.
> On Monday, July 29, 2013, Dana Pearson wrote:
> > Josh,
> > I work exclusively with XSLT but specialize in metadata only no need for
> > content display choices
> > maybe a candidate for library programming language...XSLT 2.0 has useful
> > analyze-string element to cover Roy's point
> > by the way, Josh, live just down the road in Leeton
> > regards,
> > dana
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Roy Tennant <[log in to unmask]
> > wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Peter Schlumpf <
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > Imagine if the library community had its own programming/scripting
> > > language, at least one that is domain relevant.
> > > > What would it look like?
> > >
> > > Whatever else it had, it would have to have a sophisticated way to
> > > inspect text for patterns -- that is, regular expressions.
> > > Roy
> > >
> > --
> > Dana Pearson
> > dbpearsonmlis.com