Isn't this sort of the same philosophy as the way Lisps are built? It seems like having proper namespacing and a overall functional style lend themselves to sm

Isn't this sort of the same philosophy as the way Lisps are built? It seems like having proper namespacing and a overall functional style lend themselves to smaller, more self-contained libraries. Similarly there isn't as much of a need to have a monolithic stack like Ruby has, because Ruby's style tends to step on other's work a bit leading to preferring a all-in-one style for reliability.