Hmmm, I don't think this article accurately represents how people write python since ~2005. I'm biased because I use python every day, but there's a big objective mistake.

> Ruby flips the script, giving the objects deeper customizability.

Not really, because python allows you to do things the Ruby way, but I'm not sure the reverse is true.

    class Stuff:
      def __init__(self):
        self.a = [1, 2, 3, 4]

      def __iter__(self):
        for item in self.a:
          yield item

and you can write it more simply in this case.

    def Stuff():
      a = [1, 2, 3, 4]
      for item in a:
        yield item

What about the select and map example?

    class Stuff:
      def __init__(self):
        self.a = [1, 2, 3, 4]

      def __iter__(self):
        for item in self.a:
          yield item

      def map(self, f):
        for item in self.a:
          yield f(item)

Which can be used just like the ruby example, with syntax of similar ugliness.

    print(Stuff().map(lambda item: item))

I think I could come up with a python example that maps 1:1 onto pretty much any ruby example, but I don't think it's possible in general to find ruby examples that map onto more complicated python.