In Django in particular, async feels like an afterthought, compared to other frameworks where it's first class.
There are a boatload of compelling reasons to choose Python for its libraries and documentation and adoption level, though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_function
"The identifier of a regular "function" in Ruby (which is really a method) cannot be used as a value or passed. It must first be retrieved into a Method or Proc object to be used as first-class data. The syntax for calling such a function object differs from calling regular methods."
Why do people like you insist on talking about things you don't actually know about?
You should really consider whether this is an important enough topic to be worth personally insulting people over.
> In computer science, a programming language is said to have first-class functions if it treats functions as first-class citizens. This means the language supports passing functions as arguments to other functions, returning them as the values from other functions, and assigning them to variables or storing them in data structures.[1]
OCaml has first-class functions, the names can be passed around as parameters and returned as values. Ruby functions and methods cannot; only Proc objects and Method objects proxying for them can be.
You should really consider whether pointing out your incorrectness constitutes an insult and why you think this is so.
"[P]eople like you insist on talking about things you don't actually know about" is insulting language. Consider discussing this with some people you know in real life to see what they think.
To make it concrete: what are you unable to do in Ruby that you're able to do in the languages that you claim do have first-class functions?
You can implement a type system in Scheme if you really want to, what can you do in Haskell that you can’t do in Scheme?
Just admit you are wrong, bud. It’s not as hard as you’re making it out to be. Strachey’s definition is quite clear and Ruby doesn’t have first-class functions nor first-class methods. It’s a language flaw just like Python’s lambda is a language flaw.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-class_citizen#History
In Ruby you can assign a function to a variable, pass it to a function as a parameter, return it as the result of a function, and test two function objects for equality. Ruby has first-class functions. If it didn't, you would easily be able to provide an example of a program using first-class functions that cannot be represented in Ruby.
Procs are functions (at least, they are functionally equivalent to Python functions—as pure OO languages, in both Ruby and Python first-class callable entities are richer than classic functions, even when counting closures as a kind functions and not a separate thing that includes a function, because they can carry metadata besides the environment of a closure.)
> It's in the Wikipedia page.
The Wikipedia page is wrong in that conclusion.
> The identifier of a regular "function" in Ruby (which is really a method) cannot be used as a value or passed
A method is a very different thing than a function. But, on a deeper level, I think it is also a mistake to call the thing it is referring the identifier for the method, its just syntax sugar for a symbol passed to a #send call, which, if send isn't overwritten on the sender (which it probably shouldn’t be, overriding send is a good way to cause chaos) will result in the method being called, unless some other method has priority.
> The syntax for calling such a function object differs from calling regular methods
The syntax is different only inna waybthat reflects thebdifferent behavior. Calling #call on a Proc or Method object (again, assuming a sane world where the object’s send method isn’t overidden) does dynamic method lookup on the :call name in the Method or Proc, and its syntax is exactly normal method-call syntax for that behavior (unless you use the shortcut syntax of “.()” for “.call()”, but that's just syntax sugar).
Using normal method call syntax does dynamic lookup on the method name provided in the call on the receiver object identified in the call.
That is, Ruby methods are first class, but what it is a convenient shortcut to think of as “method call syntax” in Ruby is not really method call syntax, it is syntax for a message send that will (by overridable default) result in calling a method with that name if it exists in the ancestor chain of classes for the object, so it is inaccurate to view the “method call” syntax excluding any parameters as “the identifier for the method”.
This isn't the case. If you override `send` it only affects direct usage of `send`. You can't override method dispatch. You can in some other OO languages but not Ruby.
Agreed otherwise. `x.foo` in Python and `x.method(:foo)` in Ruby do the exact same thing -- return a bound method object that can be called. These are both "proxies" in a sense but they're also first-class functions in all meaningful senses.
Correct, I both (minor) confused #send with #__send__ and misremebered the mechanism of some deep metaprogramming hacks involving a a mostly blank proxy object and #method_missing as using metaclasses and #send/#__send__ hacking; where that came from I don’t know. Should have not mentioned overriding (as its a tangent, in any case, as well as vmbeung wrong) or the #send method and referred to the fundamental underlying message send operation.
In contrast x.method(:foo) does do that proxy construction that you describe… because Ruby does not have first-class functions.
Python docs, section 3.2, subsection "Callable types".
https://docs.python.org/3/reference/datamodel.html#the-stand...
x.foo returns an "instance method object", which is a "callable type". Also referred to as a "bound method", the same term that Ruby and JavaScript use.
> When an instance method object is called, the underlying function (__func__) is called, inserting the class instance (__self__) in front of the argument list. For instance, when C is a class which contains a definition for a function f(), and x is an instance of C, calling x.f(1) is equivalent to calling C.f(x, 1)... Note that the transformation from function object to instance method object happens each time the attribute is retrieved from the instance... It is also important to note that user-defined functions which are attributes of a class instance are not converted to bound methods; this only happens when the function is an attribute of the class.
This last part is why the following program has an error:
def foo(self):
print(self)
class Foo:
def __init__(self, fn):
self.foo = fn
x = Foo(foo)
x.foo()me:
> If it's a callable then it can be called with parens
The docs:
> These are the types to which the function call operation (see section Calls) can be applied:
True of Python instance method objects. False of Ruby Methods and Procs. Therefore Python has first-class methods, and Ruby does not have first-class functions nor first-class methods. End of discussion.
This is simply false. Ruby has first-class functions.
Not only that, it has blocks, which few other languages have. Ruby optimizes for the common use-case of a method that takes a single callback/piece of code, and I miss it in most other languages, including Python.
In Python, the "with" statement is super special. But in Ruby, it's just a method that takes a block. And any method can take a block, not just one per class.
https://yehudakatz.com/2010/02/07/the-building-blocks-of-rub...
https://blog.appsignal.com/2018/09/04/ruby-magic-closures-in...