1. 19

Not a battle to the death, obv. Instead, an exploration of this wonderful observation (link starts 1 minute early for context):

I’m afraid that what this means is that the very attrbutes of Ruby that I find distasteful are what give rise to all the wonderful software that Python can never have. And vice versa, that the very thing that makes Python æsthetically pleasing to me is what leads to it not being able to do any of this cool stuff, ever.

By the way: it’s only a 21-minute talk, the 6 minutes of questions are quite skippable.

  1.  

  2. 4

    I agree 100% with the quote you pulled; I’ve found it a really interesting and useful way of framing stuff.

    1. 4

      I recall him stating a tangential: that writing ruby libraries is a fairly unaesthetic tasks, but gives possibility of clean interfaces. Vice versa for py: lib’s code is nice, but the user interface sometimes leaves a lot to be desired.

      1. 2

        So this is a really late reply, but you sparked a thought: this is exactly what is currently happening in R, with the recent Hadley-inspired flood of packages that use non-standard evaluation to deliver interfaces that are super nice for interactive use (because the function takes care of evaluating your arguments in the context of the dataset argument).

      2. 3

        It’s amazing to see how much better he’s gotten at giving talks since then.

        1. 2

          It sounds like a small audience, but even so I think he does a good job here: his pacing is good, and he mostly avoids the umm/err problem so many of us have when giving a presentation. I imagine this isn’t too long after he realised he had a talent for this :-)