Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005)

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by pg on Thursday January 01, 2009 @06:36PM (#416789)

He is saying something. Something false, I believe, but not meaningless. There is a certain style of programming that was once only possible in Lisp. The author is claiming that you can program that way in Ruby, or close enough.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp (2005) by gruseom on Thursday January 01, 2009 @07:02PM (#416804)

Oh, I don't think it's meaningless, just that the arguments are bad, and seem to have been invented in order to justify something that doesn't really need justifying.

Now I suppose someone is going to ask me what arguments are bad. Two examples: 1. "The most common use of LISP macros is to avoid typing lambda quite so much" - obviously false; 2. Using Lisp to model a Ruby example of "mini-language" demonstrates Lisp's power, not Ruby's.

[ Parent | on HN ]