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).
Me too! Even just the fact that onlyfalse 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. . .
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.
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).
Me too! Even just the fact that only
falseandnilare 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. . .The OOP in Python isn’t bolted on. It was there from the first version I ever saw in the 90s.
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.