Python and Ruby, each with roots going back into the 1990s, are two of the most popular interpreted programming languages today. Ruby is most widely known as the language in which the ubiquitous Ruby on Rails web application framework is written, but it also has legions of fans that use it for things that have nothing to do with the web. Python is a big hit in the numerical and scientific computing communities at the present time, rapidly displacing such longtime stalwarts as R when it comes to these applications. It too, however, is also put to a myriad of other uses, and the two languages probably vie for the title when it comes to how flexible their users find them.

A Matter of Personality...

That isn't to say that there aren't some major, immediately noticeable, differences between the two programming tongues. Ruby is famous for its flexibility and eagerness to please; it is seen by many as a cleaned-up continuation of Perl's "Do What I Mean" philosophy, whereby the interpreter does its best to figure out the meaning of evening non-canonical syntactic constructs. In fact, the language's creator, Yukihiro Matsumoto, chose his brainchild's name in homage to that earlier language's gemstone-inspired moniker.

Python, on the other hand, takes a very different tact. In a famous Python Enhancement Proposal called "The Zen of Python," longtime Pythonista Tim Peters declared it to be preferable that there should only be a single obvious way to do anything. Python enthusiasts and programmers, then, generally prize unanimity of style over syntactic flexibility compared to those who choose Ruby, and this shows in the code they create. Even Python's whitespace-sensitive parsing has a feel of lending clarity through syntactical enforcement that is very much at odds with the much fuzzier style of typical Ruby code.

For example, Python's much-admired list comprehension feature serves as the most obvious way to build up certain kinds of lists according to initial conditions:

a = [x**3 for x in range(10,20)]
b = [y for y in a if y % 2 == 0]

first builds up a list of the cubes of all of the numbers between 10 and 19 (yes, 19), assigning the result to 'a'. A second list of those elements in 'a' which are even is then stored in 'b'. One natural way to do this in Ruby is probably:

a = (10..19).map {|x| x ** 3}
b = a.select {|y| y.even?}

but there are a number of obvious alternatives, such as:

a = (10..19).collect do |x|
x ** 3
end

b = a.find_all do |y|
y % 2 == 0
end

It tends to be a little easier to come up with equally viable, but syntactically distinct, solutions in Ruby compared to Python, even for relatively simple tasks like the above. That is not to say that Ruby is a messy language, either; it is merely that it is somewhat freer and more forgiving than Python is, and many consider Python's relative purity in this regard a real advantage when it comes to writing clear, easily understandable code.

And Somewhat One of Performance

IT jobs are without a doubt some of the highest paying jobs with information architects, data-security analysts and UX designers taking home $100,000 or more a year. But then again, these are high demand; high expertise jobs so don’t jump with joy as yet. But like every job and IT industry to be specific, not everyone commands such higher salaries. There are a large number of IT professionals who at some point of their career feel that their salaries have hit a standstill. Even if you are an IT professional and a great one at that, your technical expertise alone may not help you exceed the IT earning barrier. To continuously exceed your salaries, you need to work hard and smart. Here is how you can exceed the earning barrier in IT.

·         Gain Business Knowledge and Move Up The Management Ladder: IT departments for the most part are considered a part of “back office” operations. What this means is that despite being a core part of the business, IT professionals do not often get enough say in revenue generating components of the business and as a result seldom have a chance to take up senior management roles.  So if you do not want to stay content with a project manager or senior project management salary, invest time and money in gaining business knowledge. It could be through a formal business degree, online training courses or just by keeping your eyes and ears open while in the organization. Having the technical experience with business knowledge will instantly make you stand apart and open the doors for you to draw senior management salaries. For example, a survey conducted highlighted that CIOs were the biggest salary winners which clearly demonstrates the value of technical and business knowledge

·         Gain expertise on the “Hot” Technologies and Keep Learning: Say you are an expert in Java and draw a respectable salary in the industry. However, someone with less years of experience than you joins the organization and draws a higher salary than you! Why you ask. It could very well be because he/she is an expert in say big data technology such as Hadoop. Information Technology is one of the most dynamic industries with new technologies and languages coming up every now and then. When a new technology comes to the foray and gains traction, there is an instant demand-supply gap created which means that those with the specific skill sets are in a position to demand high salaries. If you have to break the IT earning barrier, always be ready to reinvent yourself by learning new technologies and this way you will be well positioned to jump on the high paying opportunities in the IT industry

·         Work On Your Own Side Projects: This one might seem controversial but let me clarify that I do not mean doing freelance work because even though your organization may never find out, it is ethically in breach of contract with your contract. If you have been lucky enough to be trained in some web based technologies such as Java, .NET or even HTML etc. spare sometime after office to build your own side projects. They could be very small projects tackling some problem that only you might have but there are multiple benefits of developing side projects. Worst case scenario, you will improve your technical skills. On the up side, you might end up creating your own business. A lot of technology start-ups were actually side projects the founders tinkered on with while they were employed full-time. You may not always succeed but there is no downside to the same

Millions of people experienced the frustration and failures of the Obamacare website when it first launched. Because the code for the back end is not open source, the exact technicalities of the initial failings are tricky to determine. Many curious programmers and web designers have had time to examine the open source coding on the front end, however, leading to reasonable conclusions about the nature of the overall difficulties.

Lack of End to End Collaboration
The website was developed with multiple contractors for the front-end and back-end functions. The site also needed to be integrated with insurance companies, IRS servers, Homeland Security servers, and the Department of Veterans Affairs, all of whom had their own legacy systems. The large number of parties involved and the complex nature of the various components naturally complicated the testing and integration of each portion of the project.

The errors displayed, and occasionally the lack thereof, indicated an absence of coordination between the parties developing the separate components. A failed sign up attempt, for instance, often resulted in a page that displayed the header but had no content or failure message. A look at end user requests revealed that the database was unavailable. Clearly, the coding for the front end did not include errors for failures on the back end.

Bloat and the Abundance of Minor Issues
Obviously, numerous bugs were also an issue. The system required users to create passwords that included numbers, for example, but failed to disclose that on the form and in subsequent failure messages, leaving users baffled. In another issue, one of the pages intended to ask users to please wait or call instead, but the message and the phone information were accidentally commented out in the code.

While the front-end design has been cleared of blame for the most serious failures, bloat in the code did contribute to the early difficulties users experienced. The site design was heavy with Javascript and CSS files, and it was peppered with small coding errors that became particularly troublesome when users faced bottlenecks in traffic. Frequent typos throughout the code proved to be an additional embarrassment and were another indication of a troubled development process.

NoSQL Database
The NoSQL database is intended to allow for scalability and flexibility in the architecture of projects that will use it. This made NoSQL a logical choice for the health insurance exchange website. The newness of the technology, however, means personnel with expertise can be elusive. Database-related missteps were more likely the result of a lack of experienced administrators than with the technology itself. The choice of the NoSQL database was thus another complication in the development, but did not itself cause the failures.

Another factor of consequence is that the website was built with both agile and waterfall methodology elements. With agile methods for the front end and the waterfall methodology for the back end, streamlining was naturally going to suffer further difficulties. The disparate contractors, varied methods of software development, and an unrealistically short project time line all contributed to the coding failures of the website.

The Zen of Python, by Tim Peters has been adopted by many as a model summary manual of python's philosophy.  Though these statements should be considered more as guideline and not mandatory rules, developers worldwide find the poem to be on a solid guiding ground.

Beautiful is better than ugly.
Explicit is better than implicit.
Simple is better than complex.
Complex is better than complicated.
Flat is better than nested.
Sparse is better than dense.
Readability counts.
Special cases aren't special enough to break the rules.
Although practicality beats purity.
Errors should never pass silently.
Unless explicitly silenced.
In the face of ambiguity, refuse the temptation to guess.
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
Although that way may not be obvious at first unless you're Dutch.
Now is better than never.
Although never is often better than *right* now.
If the implementation is hard to explain, it's a bad idea.
If the implementation is easy to explain, it may be a good idea.
Namespaces are one honking great idea -- let's do more of those!