> I don't agree with this: Lisp's metaprogramming capabilities come from its macro system, while Ruby's metaprogramming capabilities are due to metaclasses (whi

> I don't agree with this: Lisp's metaprogramming capabilities come from its macro system, while Ruby's metaprogramming capabilities are due to metaclasses (which is exactly why it fits in the Smalltalk category). Though, see the Common Lisp Object System Meta Object Protocol (CLOS MOP). There were a bunch of meta-object systems for Lisp, with the CLOS MOP as the most prominent example.