3 ms·
Some of the conclusions are inconsistent. For example, Ruby got canned mainly for having a heavyweight framework, since he wants to write everything from scratc
by wgj 17y ago
Some of the conclusions are inconsistent. For example, Ruby got canned mainly for having a heavyweight framework, since he wants to write everything from scratch. What keeps one from doing that in Ruby? Ruby does not depend on Rails.
His complaint about different versions and implementations is a red herring. Lisp is not immune from this.
- smanek 17y agoThere are different implementations, of course. But the the multiple version problem was worked out over a decade ago.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- gruseom 17y agoIt's the other way around. For things you've decided to write from scratch, especially if they're hard, CL is a dream. There's nothing comparable in my experience [~]: you can build unbelievably powerful and concise programs easily, then just as easily transform them in major ways. It's the ultimate combination of malleability and expressive power. (Oh, and performance, when you need it.) I can think of only three reasons to prefer Ruby over it: (1) you want Rails etc.; (2) you don't like Lisp; (3) you really like Ruby. The latter two are matters of taste, which leaves #1. [~] I haven't tried Clojure yet. Then again, I don't need to: the JVM is a drawback for me, and I don't need all those Java libraries right now.