Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005)

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by pjmlp on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:10PM (#12471093)

I hardly have used Lisp besides Emacs Lisp and Clojure, but as a language geek I do have my collection of Lisp related stuff, mainly Xerox PARC, Lisp Machines and commercial CL environments.

Scheme also has environments like DrRaket, even if the language now has moved beyond its Scheme origins.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:33PM (#12471167)

I don't know how you got a lispm, but nice for you :-).

I was confusing you with Rainer (who, by coincedence, goes by the username lispm on HN), who actually loves CL environments.

As for me, I set my store by Geiser. Integrated documentation from all the implmentations it supports, repl (as well as the capability to connect to a remote one), support for all three big Schemes, is an emacs extension, and has excellent docs? Consider me sold.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by pjmlp on Saturday September 10, 2016 @07:17PM (#12471329)

I wish.

I meant in what concerns papers, videos and magazines articles back from those days.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @07:24PM (#12471351)

...Ah. Yeah, I wish I had a lispm too, but I don't even have the more pedestrian antiques.

[ Parent | on HN ]