4 ms·
What those PHP guys are unable to understand, is that all the coolness and beauty of Sinatra comes from the lack of () {} $ and other meaningless (it this conte
by c00p3r 16y ago
What those PHP guys are unable to understand, is that all the coolness and beauty of Sinatra comes from the lack of () {} $ and other meaningless (it this context) symbols and words, like function and echo.
The same effect is in Clojure, but it is a little bit more difficult to explain.
They're lost the beauty of Lisp (especially Scheme) when they broke the clarity and unambiguity of the syntax pushing all those foreign symbols into it. Moreover, they also renamed and broke most of common idioms, using words that could be better as a variable names instead of keywords.
So, it is not a Lisp dialect, even not so-called Lisp-1. It is just yet another JVM-targeted pseudo-functional language, which, OK, looks like lisp to those who never seen a Lisp before.
But, its cool (and ugly), I must admit. ^_^
- there 16y agoWhat those PHP guys are unable to understand, is that all the coolness and beauty of Sinatra comes from the lack of () {} $ and other meaningless (it this context) symbols and words, like function and echo. i think "those php guys" are well aware that their language is not ruby and care more about getting work done than whether they have to type dollar signs and brackets.
- c00p3r 16y agoGetting work done is a different goal, and, indeed, an understanding that it is impossible to repeat Sinatra isn't required for getting work done.
- dhotson 16y agoI think c00p3r makes a valid point. PHP makes it very hard to write "beautiful" frameworks like Sinatra. There's a whole bunch of crufty looking stuff in PHP that is unavoidable. That doesn't stop me from writing PHP and getting-shit-done. That's an entirely different argument though.
- ElbertF 16y agoBasically what you're saying is that all the beauty of Sinatra comes from Ruby, I disagree.
- c00p3r 16y agoWithout a beauty it is just a dispatcher. There are thousands of them.