Re:How did Ruby and Python prevent fragmentation while ML an...
by bunderbunder on Sunday May 06, 2012 @11:26PM
(#3937448)
A stab at it:
Ruby and Python (and Perl, etc.) are languages for pragmatists. Their user communities are overwhelmingly dominated by folks who've got a practical problem to solve, and primarily see the language as a tool to help solve that problem. They also tend to be rather "CISC"-y, which makes trying to customize them less attractive because complicated things are harder (and often less fun) to tinker with.
Lisp and ML (and Forth, etc.) are languages for language geeks. They might see a lot of practical use, but they're also popular as a solid working base from which to experiment with new language ideas. And they benefit from being fairly small and orthogonal. Most fans of languages in this camp have written their own implementation of their language of choice - partially out of being a language geek, and partially because their specs are clean enough that doing so isn't a very intimidating prospect.
Ruby and Python (and Perl, etc.) are languages for pragmatists. Their user communities are overwhelmingly dominated by folks who've got a practical problem to solve, and primarily see the language as a tool to help solve that problem. They also tend to be rather "CISC"-y, which makes trying to customize them less attractive because complicated things are harder (and often less fun) to tinker with.
Lisp and ML (and Forth, etc.) are languages for language geeks. They might see a lot of practical use, but they're also popular as a solid working base from which to experiment with new language ideas. And they benefit from being fairly small and orthogonal. Most fans of languages in this camp have written their own implementation of their language of choice - partially out of being a language geek, and partially because their specs are clean enough that doing so isn't a very intimidating prospect.