3 ms·
I don't see how Ruby could be called a Lisp. To me, the fundamental concept of Lisp is that the basic data structure is the cons-pair, and that both code and da
by olavk 18y ago
I don't see how Ruby could be called a Lisp.
To me, the fundamental concept of Lisp is that the basic data structure is the cons-pair, and that both code and data can be represented and manipulated as graphs of cons-pairs.
The blog is arguing that Ruby is an acceptable alternative to Lisp, which may be true. But that doesn't make Ruby a Lisp.
- erso 18y agoThe crux of the post seems to be that because Ruby has lambdas, it is an acceptable alternative. In my experience, being that I'm learning Haskell and coming from a Ruby background, merely having lambdas doesn't qualify for functional status.
- Maascamp 18y agoWell said. The latest version of PHP is going to have lambdas, and I'm quite certain that it's not a Lisp.
- jrockway 18y agoIts lambdas don't even close over lexical state, so I'm not sure why they even exist. Yet another concept the PHP designers don't get, I guess, but feel pressured to add. (See also: PHP's object system.)
- thisisnotmyname 18y agoHe's not arguing that ruby is a Lisp, just that it gives most of the power of Lisp in a syntax closer to what most programmers are familiar with.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- Jebdm 18y agoYou're right, but he shouldn't have titled it "Why Ruby is an acceptable Lisp".
- neeson 18y agoInterestingly enough, one of Clojure's selling points is that the basic data structure is not the cons-pair (rather the implementation details of storage are abstracted). It is clearly a lisp, however.