Why Ruby Is More Readable Than Python

Re:Why Ruby Is More Readable Than Python by no_wizard on Tuesday July 19, 2022 @08:49PM (#32159927)

I think this is a tooling problem, as far as LISPs go, because unlike C, you (as far as I remember, perhaps I'm wrong) aren't relying on the compiler to fill in the bits, the macro is just a shortcut, if you will, to functionality.

Not always transparent, but it should be solved with correct tooling. I think the bigger problem was LISP was far too long tied to LISP Machines, rather than being able to run independently on any hardware, which helped C and Pascal gain traction early

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby Is More Readable Than Python by pjmlp on Wednesday July 20, 2022 @02:15AM (#32162104)

Lisp itself precedes the Lisp Machines for about 20 years, and was available in UNIX workstations as well, in fact that is where Allegro Common Lisp started.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby Is More Readable Than Python by kazinator on Wednesday July 20, 2022 @04:01AM (#32162808)

Lisp wasn't necessarily tied to specific hardware, like Lisp machines, but to powerful hardware with lots of RAM and processing power.

The "Unix workstation" of the 1980's was about the most powerful, expensive machine you could get your hands on that still qualified as a microcomputer. No wonder they got some sort of industrial Lisp to fit on it.

Unix ran on a lot less than that before that; what sort of Lisp was there for V7 Unix on a PDP-11, and what were its applications?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby Is More Readable Than Python by pjmlp on Wednesday July 20, 2022 @04:42AM (#32163039)

PDP-11 could hardly run something like Multics or VMS, adopted a programming language whose genesis was to Bootstrap CPL compiler, let alone having a Lisp.

[ Parent | on HN ]