• foo@withachanceof.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Heh, I was about to comment how my hot take is that Python is overrated. It’s… fine and I don’t really have anything against it for the most part, but I greatly prefer Ruby to Python.

    I’m speaking purely about the language itself here, not any libraries available for it (since someone will always point out how great Python is for data work).

    • fubo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      My impression at the time was that Ruby and Python both caught on with people who were ready to be done with Perl.

      And, later, that Go set out to be a replacement for Java, but ended up being a replacement for Python for people who were ready for type checking and built-in multithreading.

    • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Me too! Even just the fact that only false and nil are falsey is enough for me to prefer Ruby. Being able to use ||= as an idiomatic one-time initializer is rad. Python’s OOP bothers me in a lot of ways compared to Ruby as well. And don’t get me started on Ruby’s blocks. . .

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        The OOP in Python isn’t bolted on. It was there from the first version I ever saw in the 90s.

        • zagaberoo@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’re absolutely right, not sure where I thought I had read that.

          Edit: It’s actually a bit less clear cut when you consider new vs old style classes, which took the Python 3 discontinuity to resolve. But still, it was wrong to imply that Python didn’t originally support OOP.