This article argues that Ruby has the power of LISP's lamda's and macros and may be a better choice overall due to the availability of developers and quality of its libraries.
This article poses a very interesting idea - the article itself and the comments it attracted are well worth reading - but I doubt that the idea is correct. Still, it is interesting to hear this from an avowed Lisper who has recently become an avowed Rubist.
The main problem with the article is that its starting premise, that 'all there is to Lisp is functional density and macros' is wrong. I would expand a bit more on this, but don't need to - the various commentators (e.g, here) and here) do this very well.
read more | digg story
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment