Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005)

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:21PM (#12471130)

I agree regarding this mischaracterization of Lisp, but have to laugh as you mischaracterize Scheme. Lisps are excellent at adapting to programming paradigms. Scheme is often used academically in a functional style, but if you want to go full-on procedural or OO, we're just as good as Common Lisp. Okay, maybe we're not quite as good as CLOS, but we're not as far off as you'd think.

Also, most Schemes are way more traditional than Clojure. And no, Racket isn't Scheme.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by nabla9 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:33PM (#12471172)

I had to simplify in the sake of argument.

Both Common Lisp and Scheme are multi paradigm languages by nature, but Scheme took philosophical step into different direction. This philosophical difference may follow into other Lisp dialects that are not exactly Scheme.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by qwertyuiop924 on Saturday September 10, 2016 @06:38PM (#12471195)

...I would say clojure goes in a third direction, but fair enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]