On Apr 16, 9:16 am, Marco Mariani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Do you mean Ruby's track in providing backward compatibility is better > than Python's? > > Googling for that a bit, I would reckon otherwise.
I can't comment on that. Ruby is a lot younger -- I'd expect it to still be stabilizing a bit. What I'm saying is that, for example, there are a lot of cool tools out there for using Python to manipulate postscript and latex and such. Most of those tools require no maintenance, and the authors are not paying any attention to them, and they aren't interested in messing with them anymore. My guess is that there are few such tools for Ruby. However, I wouldn't be too surprised if porting them to Ruby and testing them properly is not much more difficult than porting them to py3k and testing them properly... Especially since the basic treatment of strings is totally different in py3k, it seems. Maybe there is a secret desire in the Python community to remain a fringe minority underdog forever? -- Aaron Watters === http://www.xfeedme.com/nucular/pydistro.py/go?FREETEXT=reap+dead+child -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list