<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Heist</title>
	<atom:link href="http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/625/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/625</link>
	<description>A Pythoneer&#039;s adventures with Scheme, etc.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 14:37:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans Nowak</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/625/comment-page-1#comment-529</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans Nowak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/?p=625#comment-529</guid>
		<description>Hm, well, the heavy use of DSLs would be one of them... also, Ruby allows for several constructs that are generally considered gratuitous/redundant in the Python world, like &quot;unless&quot;, &quot;x if y&quot;, the use of (arguably) non-intuitive operators rather than descriptive method names, etc. And Ruby likes functional idioms more than Python does (or rather, Guido ;-).

I&#039;m not saying these are bad things, just that they allow for a different programming style.

(In fact, I might consider using Ruby more, if I wasn&#039;t already too deep into exploring Lisp variants... :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hm, well, the heavy use of DSLs would be one of them&#8230; also, Ruby allows for several constructs that are generally considered gratuitous/redundant in the Python world, like &#8220;unless&#8221;, &#8220;x if y&#8221;, the use of (arguably) non-intuitive operators rather than descriptive method names, etc. And Ruby likes functional idioms more than Python does (or rather, Guido ;-).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying these are bad things, just that they allow for a different programming style.</p>
<p>(In fact, I might consider using Ruby more, if I wasn&#8217;t already too deep into exploring Lisp variants&#8230; :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nes</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/625/comment-page-1#comment-528</link>
		<dc:creator>nes</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/?p=625#comment-528</guid>
		<description>Ah a cliffhanger! Seriously, would you mind giving some examples of  practices and idioms you found interesting when comparing?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah a cliffhanger! Seriously, would you mind giving some examples of  practices and idioms you found interesting when comparing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

