Thanks for the insight. If I wanted to do a full scale semantic web
application (nightmare scenario), I'd go Java anyway, not Python. I'm
feeling more inclined to focus on Ruby rather than Python the more I read
here.

Josh Welker
Information Technology Librarian
James C. Kirkpatrick Library
University of Central Missouri
Warrensburg, MO 64093
JCKL 2260
660.543.8022


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Chris Fitzpatrick
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:34 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Python and Ruby

Hi,

My first email was an attempt at humour. Sorry, I didn't mean to jack your
thread.

Ruby is my language of choice, but I have done some work in Python.

For all the things you listed, there are libraries in both languages that
are probably as good as each other.

Python has lxml, which is as good as Ruby's Nokogiri for XML stuff. Python
has Sunburnt for Solr stuff, although I do really like Sunspot (and Tire
for ElasticSearch is even better).  Both Python and Ruby have mechanize
for screen scraping,  which was actually based off a Perl's WWW::Mechanize
library...

I will say that  while Ruby has more web application building tools, I
think Python is still more popular with science-y type people. Python
seems to be what all "Programming 101 for Non-CS Students" classes use
now, so I think Python has more data processing/science libraries,
especially for things like  Natural Language Processing and statistics. I
went to a Semantic Web workshop and everyone was using Python or Java,
although there are some Ruby libraries out there...

That said, JRuby has really come a long way in the past year, so now it's
easier to use the bad-ass Java libraries ( like Marc4j, CoreNLP, and
Java's
XML libraries)   without actually having to put up with all the crap Java
makes you submit to.

In terms of speed/performance both Ruby and Python are equally terrible.

I guess I'd just recommend instead of learning both languages, I would
push myself to learn one really really well. That was something I learned
the hard way when I was younger...always learning a language just well
enough to get comfortable then getting bored and trying something else.

good luck!



On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:03 PM, Jon P. Stroop
<[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> s/ruby/any_language/
>
> 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]
> <javascript:;>>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Peter Schlumpf <
> [log in to unmask]<javascript:;>
> > >
> > > 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
> >
>