3 ms·

Well, Ruby isn't really homoiconic. I can't speak for OP, but to me, if a language isn't homoiconic, it can't be a Lisp. Lisps don't have to have parenthesis-b

Well, Ruby isn't really homoiconic. I can't speak for OP, but to me, if a language isn't homoiconic, it can't be a Lisp. Lisps don't have to have parenthesis-based syntax, but the grammars should be close to context-free (like Lisp's is - most of the language can be defined by two production rules). Ruby's grammar is nowhere near as simple. Compare: Lisp: http://cui.unige.ch/isi/bnf/LISP/ http://cui.unige.ch/isi/bnf/LISP/ Ruby: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/663027/ruby-grammar http://stackoverflow.com/questions/663027/ruby-grammar

dragonwriter 13y ago
Matz (except for the tongue in cheek thing about a suggested name at the end) didn't suggest that Ruby was a Lisp, just that in designing it Lisp was a starting point. So, yes, you have every reason to doubt the claim that Ruby is Lisp -- a claim no one has made. I don't see how that resolves your stated doubt of Matz claim that Lisp was a starting point for Ruby.
- alxndr 13y ago
  > "the claim that Ruby is Lisp -- a claim no one has made" Posted without comment: this was written just before Matz wrote this email, but here's someone saying that Ruby is an acceptable LISP: http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2005/12/03/why-ruby-is-an-acceptable-lisp http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2005/12/03/why-ruby-is-a...
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    Given the benefits of Lisp that were cited in that article as defining, the conclusion is well-supported by the article. Obviously, those aren't everyone's central concerns for a Lisp, nor are they the standard criteria for a Lisp. But, in any case, that someone said something like "Ruby is a Lisp" somewhere else in a different context doesn't change that arguing that Ruby isn't a Lisp was something of beating a strawman in this this thread.
  - juliangamble 13y ago
    I remember "why ruby is an acceptable Lisp" - that was a fun read. This is an equally fun rebuttal by Steve Yegge http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/lisp-is-not-accep...

dragonwriter 13y ago

Matz (except for the tongue in cheek thing about a suggested name at the end) didn't suggest that Ruby was a Lisp, just that in designing it Lisp was a starting point. So, yes, you have every reason to doubt the claim that Ruby is Lisp -- a claim no one has made. I don't see how that resolves your stated doubt of Matz claim that Lisp was a starting point for Ruby.

alxndr 13y ago
> "the claim that Ruby is Lisp -- a claim no one has made" Posted without comment: this was written just before Matz wrote this email, but here's someone saying that Ruby is an acceptable LISP: http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2005/12/03/why-ruby-is-an-acceptable-lisp http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2005/12/03/why-ruby-is-a...
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  Given the benefits of Lisp that were cited in that article as defining, the conclusion is well-supported by the article. Obviously, those aren't everyone's central concerns for a Lisp, nor are they the standard criteria for a Lisp. But, in any case, that someone said something like "Ruby is a Lisp" somewhere else in a different context doesn't change that arguing that Ruby isn't a Lisp was something of beating a strawman in this this thread.
- juliangamble 13y ago
  I remember "why ruby is an acceptable Lisp" - that was a fun read. This is an equally fun rebuttal by Steve Yegge http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com.au/2006/04/lisp-is-not-accep...