# Ruby's "More than one way to do things." **URL:** \ **Category:** Ruby\ **Created:** [November 24, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606 "2010-11-24T22:16:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Dobai-Pataky\_BSSSSl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/d/77aa72/32.png) [@Dobai-Pataky\_BSSSSl](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Dobai-Pataky_BSSSSl)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/1 "2010-11-24T22:16:13Z")
There is one point made about Python vs. Ruby on this site: [http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PythonVsRuby](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PythonVsRuby) that interests me: It is this: Ruby: “There is more than one way to do it.” Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to do it.” Do you agree that Ruby emphasizes having more than one way to do it more than Python does? Do you believe this is a good thing for Ruby? Why? I personally like to have structure in my life and feel okay with having only one way, but then - I’ve never really programmed anything in Python before so I can’t really make a good comparison. Thank you for any thoughts. Jason ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 10:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/2 "2010-11-24T22:43:50Z")
Also: Even though we are all computer programmers (kind of), we come from a diversity of fields of expertise, let alone different worlds of programming languages / paradigms / experiences. Ruby is imho the language that allows developers who’ve done Perl, C, asm, (python), JavaScript, Pascal, whatever before to all work on the same page, while everyone still gets some aspects of their most comforting language. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/3 "2010-11-24T22:33:09Z")
Hi, In message “Re: Ruby’s “More than one way to do things.”” on Thu, 25 Nov 2010 06:16:16 +0900, Jason L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) writes: |There is one point made about Python vs. Ruby on this site: |[http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PythonVsRuby](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PythonVsRuby) that interests me: | |It is this: |Ruby: “There is more than one way to do it.” |Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to |do it.” | |Do you agree that Ruby emphasizes having more than one way to do it more |than Python does? Do you believe this is a good thing for Ruby? Why? “There is more than one way to do it” is the slogan we borrowed from the Perl community. I cannot speak for the Perl community, but for us, the slogan expresses the importance of diversity. But we do not love diversity for no reason. We do not want confusion, for the sake of diversity. So to rephrase: “There should be more than one way to do it, if having many way is rational, depending on often untold context”. ``` matz. ``` ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 10:56pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/4 "2010-11-24T22:56:24Z")
On Nov 24, 2010, at 1:31 PM, Yukihiro M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > |Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to > do it, if having many way is rational, depending on often untold > context”. > > ``` > matz. > > ``` I couldn’t agree more. There is no island of simplicity. Ruby is a pragmatic language and wants to be exploited—not shoe-horned. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 10:48pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/5 "2010-11-24T22:48:51Z")
There are more than one way to do things because different programmers come from different languages may prefer different style. In python everything can be readable from one python programmer to the next because of how it is. Ruby expects people to be migrating from C, C++, Java, Python, Perl, Lisp, sh, etc. Each type of programmer may have a different perspective on the “one true way” to express themselves. Though a couple of years old please refer to this link: [http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby3.html](http://www.artima.com/intv/ruby3.html) On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Jason L. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/6 "2010-11-25T00:34:31Z")
Thanks everyone for commenting. I really enjoy using Ruby compared to Java and the documentation and community is great. That has kept me a big fan of Ruby. I’m honored to see that Matz himself has commented on this thread. I use Ruby for math and scientific purposes so this is the main reason I started looking at Python in the first place - it is used a lot by people like me. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 24, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/7 "2010-11-24T23:25:14Z")
If I want to walk to my friend’s house, why should I have to go in the same manner as you? When you walked to my friend’s house it was raining, so you didn’t take the newspaper with you, and you didn’t dally. Today I am going to my friend’s house and it is sunny. I think I will take him the newspaper, and stop periodically under nearby trees for some shade. I might even detour to the ice cream shop. It’s good to know however, that we can both walk to my friend’s house. Sam ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2010, 9:33am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/8 "2010-11-25T09:33:35Z")
Ruby is very laid back. Although able to talk passionately at great length about sophisticated object oriented issues, it is equally relaxed about spending the entire evening in the company of down-to-earth procedural programmers. You ought to enjoy choosing which way you want to do things. We’re pushed about too much these days. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2010, 3:37pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/9 "2010-11-25T15:37:27Z")
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Jason L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > t is this: > Ruby: “There is more than one way to do it.” > Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to > do it.” I think that that word ‘obvious’ is rather subjective. I’ve found lots of things in programming, and life, which are obvious to others but not to me. What we’ve experienced before shapes what seems obvious. So if there’s more than one way to do something, I might find a different one (or ones) obvious than someone else. If there’s only one way some folks will have a harder time finding it. This is somewhat related to Ruby’s Principle of Least Surprise. This also is subjective, and really means at the end least surprising from Matz’s view point. Luckily for me, I tend to see things similarly to him more often than not. – Rick DeNatale Blog: [http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/](http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/) Github: [rubyredrick (Rick DeNatale) · GitHub](http://github.com/rubyredrick) Twitter: @RickDeNatale WWR: [http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale](http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale) LinkedIn: [http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale](http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale) ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/10 "2010-11-26T14:43:12Z")
> Ruby: “There is more than one way to do it.” > Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to > do it.” Programming languages – at least, good programming languages – shouldn’t try to make programmers into better programmers, or force them to work in a certain way in order to get results. (Imagine a toolbox that told you off for using the wrong screwdriver!) The two main reasons I really, really love Ruby: (1) Good cognitive fit: the easy way is generally the way my brain works. (2) on the rare occasions when (1) isn’t true, I’m usually free to do it my way anyway. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 25, 2010, 8:16pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/11 "2010-11-25T20:16:08Z")
In article [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid), Yukihiro M. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I cannot speak for the Perl community, but for > us, the slogan expresses the importance of diversity. But we do not > love diversity for no reason. We do not want confusion, for the sake > of diversity. As someone who still has much more Perl under their belt than Ruby, mark me down as one of the people who appreciates that. I can’t count the number of times I’ve come across Perl code that does crazy stuff just because someone wanted to show off how well they knew deep language tricks more than they wanted write maintainable code. Combined with the cruft Perl has accumulated over the years, it’s not hard to explain to people why Ruby makes a better go-to scripting language in most cases. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 5:41am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/12 "2010-11-29T05:41:13Z")
Shadowfirebird [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > Ruby: “There is more than one way to do it.” > > Python: “There should be one - and preferably only one - obvious way to > > do it.” > > Programming languages – at least, good programming languages – shouldn’t > try to make programmers into better programmers, or force them to work in > a certain way in order to get results. (Imagine a toolbox that told you > off for using the wrong screwdriver!) I believe that’s almost 100% wrong. A programming language that doesn’t try to make better programmers ends up enabling poor programming practices, which ends up producing poor programs. That results in programs and web sites that crash, which brings on a bad reputation for programmers in general. PHP is a great example. It is possible to write good programs in PHP, but it’s also very, very easy to write bad programs in PHP. The result is that most of the PHP samples you find on the web are absolute crap – delicate, unsafe, unmaintainable. The programmers don’t realize this, and so the crap reproduces like a virus. A toolbox certainly OUGHT to tell me off if I try to unscrew a slotted head screw with a Philips screwdriver, if that saves me from taking a chunk out of my hand as I do it. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 26, 2010, 2:52pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/13 "2010-11-26T14:52:36Z")
On Nov 24, 11:35pm, Jason L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I use Ruby for math and scientific purposes so this is the main reason I > started looking at Python in the first place - it is used a lot by > people like me. Welcome to the community: you’ll love it here! 🙂 Indeed the diversity is one of the strongest assets of the Ruby community, and hence the Ruby ecosystem too. Both in the way the language works, the people, the interests, etc… And it’s full of people ready to push the envelope who are always trying to improve the status quo (so much so that some may find the community suffers a bit from ADHD, but personally I love it that way! 🙂 ) That said as a fellow math/science Ruby programmer, most of the scientific community seems to have “chosen” Python. Personally I think that’s a pity, maybe due to some misunderstanding on what Ruby is (I got people surprised when I tell them I program in Ruby: “But I thought Ruby was just for the web, like PHP”). The Ruby language I think it’s an excellent language for science, but alas the poor usage by the math/science community has resulted in very few libraries. A lot of the original hype behind Ruby was due to Rails, so it’s understandable that a lot of libraries are web-oriented. As time progresses the interest has spread out, first to “neighbouring” topics and now to more general things. That said science/math seems still a bit far from where the “action” is, and hence we hardly get much in terms of fancy, cutting edge libraries. I don’t want to discourage you! As I said I use Ruby too, and there’s no real reason why Ruby could not become a great scientific language. But I thought it only fair to warn you: the language is great, but the libraries are a bit lacking. It’s a “fixable” problem, but we need “brave” people to break this chicken and egg situation. (this is all personal opinion, of course, others may disagree). 🙂 Once again, welcome to the Ruby community! 😉 Diego P.S. Make sure to check the NArray gem. It’s pretty much a requirement for anything math related. You may also be interested in Tioga or the Gnuplot gem if you need to do plotting, and RSRuby if you need to use R. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:28am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/14 "2010-11-29T08:28:12Z")
On 29 November 2010 05:40, Tim R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I believe that’s almost 100% wrong. A programming language that doesn’t > try to make better programmers ends up enabling poor programming practices, > which ends up producing poor programs. That results in programs and web > sites that crash, which brings on a bad reputation for programmers in > general. I believe you are 100% wrong, There is no way to force people into writing good code as there is no way forcing people into writing good novels. You can learn to write decently one or the other by education and training but neither can be forced, and the less expressive the language the poorer the result. While the programs are also read by the computer good code should be readable by humans and freedom in choosing your expression gives you the option to express things differently to fit a particular context. > PHP is a great example. It is possible to write good programs in PHP, but > it’s also very, very easy to write bad programs in PHP. The result is that > most of the PHP samples you find on the web are absolute crap – delicate, > unsafe, unmaintainable. The programmers don’t realize this, and so the > crap reproduces like a virus. PHP is a poor example as it is a poor language in general. By its inconsistency, inflexibility and lack of crucial features it encourages poor code and code duplication so it is much harder to write good code in a Personal Homepage Preprocessor than an actual programming language. Thanks MIchal ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:39am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/15 "2010-11-29T08:39:29Z")
On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:05 AM, Jason L. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > I use Ruby for math and scientific purposes so this is the main reason I > started looking at Python in the first place - it is used a lot by > people like me. This is an interesting blog post and discussion on the topic [http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ecyef/ruby\_is\_beautiful\_but\_im\_moving\_to\_python](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/ecyef/ruby_is_beautiful_but_im_moving_to_python) martin ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/16 "2010-11-29T08:26:19Z")
Tim R. wrote in post #964583: > I believe that’s almost 100% wrong. A programming language that doesn’t > try to make better programmers ends up enabling poor programming > practices, > which ends up producing poor programs. That results in programs and web > sites that crash, which brings on a bad reputation for programmers in > general. > > PHP is a great example. It is possible to write good programs in PHP, > but > it’s also very, very easy to write bad programs in PHP. The result is > that > most of the PHP samples you find on the web are absolute crap – > delicate, > unsafe, unmaintainable. The programmers don’t realize this, and so the > crap reproduces like a virus. > > A toolbox certainly OUGHT to tell me off if I try to unscrew a slotted > head > screw with a Philips screwdriver, if that saves me from taking a chunk > out > of my hand as I do it. The problem with PHP isn’t necessarily that it’s easy to write bad programs in PHP; it’s probably easy to write bad programs in any language. The issue is that its (or at least was) extremely difficult to _write good programs_ in PHP. Not only is the standard library just a nasty pile of random, often -mostly- duplicate functions with no conventions to unify them, but historically the PHP environment is be default configured to be as insecure as possible, with what register\_globals being on be default (I know it isn’t anymore), the existence of magic\_quotes, mysqli (most importantly for its prepared statements) not being part of any standard PHP install package, etc. This isn’t even including the fact that PHP didn’t support namespacing (or even emulation of it) until 5.3.0, its typecoersion rules are even more mind-bending than Javascripts, OO is cripplingly limited… Ruby, although also not imposing any sort of philosophy on the programmer at least readily provides all the tools a competent programmer needs to adhere to his own philosophy. Matz understands that there’s very rarely only one correct way to tackle any possible problem, and thus that a key of language design isn’t telling you how to solve those unforeseen problems, but to give you, the expert, the best tools you need to solve them. ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 10:57am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/17 "2010-11-29T10:57:31Z")
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 5:40 AM, Tim R. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > crap reproduces like a virus. > After all those years I am unsure how big the impact of a language is. > What I’d consider facts (in no particular order): 1. A programming language can do little to nothing to help you decide how you lay out functionality across program code artifacts (functions, procedures, methods, classes). But this (along with naming of things) has a dramatic impact on readability and reusability. 2. Good libraries which enforce particular usage patterns can do a great deal to guide their users to a proper code structure. - But they cannot prevent creating a mess if one tries to. 3. A key factor for writing good code is the person doing the writing. People not interested to learn or otherwise improve their work are unlikely to write better code. The same holds for people who do not have a chance to improve because they are constantly buried under loads of work since they lack the time needed for reflection. 4. Removing obstacles to writing good code (compare for example Ruby’s OO with Perl’s) certainly helps people writing better code. My 0.02 EUR. Kind regards robert ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 7:41pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/18 "2010-11-29T19:41:22Z")
hi, saw this on twitter today: > **[python-distribute.org](http://ww12.python-distribute.org/introduction.html)** > > Distribute,PIP,Python Download,Pip,Python,免费下载 where he was making a point that “it sure is complicated for a language having one way of doing things” It is good to have multiple options, find the best solution to a problem by applying common sense and good taste, take feedback/ benchmark and iterate. Not really sure how the python zen works. Maybe having no choice in indentation, multi-line lambdas etc are obvious. i dunno. If it comes with experience and then it is no better than having options and discovering the best option through experience, irc, mail-group, benchmarks, awesome community, pretty ok docs and your own common sense and good taste. cheers, deepak ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2010, 11:31pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/19 "2010-11-29T23:31:15Z")
On 29 November 2010 19:40, deepak [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > Not really sure how the python zen works. Maybe having no choice in > indentation, multi-line lambdas etc are obvious. i dunno. If it comes > with experience and then it is no better than having options and > discovering the best option through experience, irc, mail-group, > benchmarks, awesome community, pretty ok docs and your own common > sense and good taste. The point is that there is no one right way, the right way depends on context. The python zen does not work for me at least. Take a small example: Python is supposedly an object oriented language but you don’t have “string”.len you only have len(“string”) supposedly for the case when an object does not implement len by itself but the length can still be determined (possibly to be 1 or or 0 on scalars). Sure, in Python you can’t just monkey-patch a len to something that could have it determined but does not implement it so to have only one true way you need a procedural len() which goes against OO. In Ruby you have “string”.length and you can always write procedural len() if it makes your code look nicer and you can also add length to any object you want (well, except for integers but you could use some voodoo if you really insisted). Thanks Michal ---
**Author:** ![leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@leveille](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/leveille)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2010, 9:34am UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606/20 "2010-11-30T09:34:17Z")
On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Michal S. [removed\_email\_address@domain.invalid](mailto:removed_email_address@domain.invalid) wrote: > > > > Python is supposedly an object oriented language but you don’t have > > “string”.len > > you only have > > len(“string”) Ouch. > supposedly for the case when an object does not implement len by > itself but the length can still be determined (possibly to be 1 or or > 0 on scalars). > > Sure, in Python you can’t just monkey-patch a len to something that > could have it determined but does not implement it so to have only one > true way you need a procedural len() which goes against OO. That sounds strange. > In Ruby you have “string”.length and you can always write procedural > len() if it makes your code look nicer and you can also add length to > any object you want (well, except for integers but you could use some > voodoo if you really insisted). It’s not too difficult. Just for the fun of it: irb(main):001:0\> class Numeric irb(main):002:1\> def length;size;end irb(main):003:1\> end =\> nil irb(main):004:0\> 123.length =\> 4 irb(main):005:0\> (1\<\<100).length =\> 16 length is in bytes. 🙂 Kind regards robert [Next page](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/rubys-more-than-one-way-to-do-things/199606.md?page=2)