3 ms·
Yes, i have read that article. Here is my humble opinion: Having 80% of the expressibility, even if you don't need the other 20% that often, does not make you l
by pavelludiq 17y ago
Yes, i have read that article. Here is my humble opinion: Having 80% of the expressibility, even if you don't need the other 20% that often, does not make you lisp. Which is why the title is not "Why ruby is lisp", but uses the word "acceptable". Its just semantics, and i don't want to argue about what makes something lisp, it wasn't even my main point.
- steveklabnik 17y agoI think "Why Ruby is Good Enough" makes for a better title, I'd agree. I don't think Ruby is Lisp either, I just felt that it went along with your point, that's all.
- raganwald 17y agoDoes this boil down to a case of Worse is Better?
- pmiller2 17y agoThat is a good question, and worthy of an upvote. My first inclination is to say it is not, because if Ruby really were the "worse" to Lisp's "better" in some measurable, objective sense, then presumably Matz would have created something like Clojure rather than Ruby.