Adding Common Lisp to Ruby

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by NF BetaK, Aug 18, 2010.

  1. NF BetaK

    NF BetaK Guest

    I forward an email conversation that I had with matz:
    -Dear Yukihiro=2C
    I find Ruby to be an incredible language=2C and I thank you for creating it=
     
    NF BetaK, Aug 18, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. and another one is better solved with Common Lisp? Let's take out the perfo=
    rmance-related part, and parallel programming with it.
    blems can be solved well with CommonLisp. IN THEORY, if you cancombine the =
    two languages together WELL, you can solve broader domainof problems with o=
    ne language. But if you fail to combine well, youwould kill the future of t=
    he language. So without the image of goodcombination, it is no use discussi=
    ng vague imaginary language.
    ask the Ruby community, what do you think of this?
    I am 100% in line with what Matz says in his quote above. Present a
    concrete suggestion how such a combination can look like - then we can
    discuss on those grounds. This concept has to be developed anyway if
    what you are suggesting should ever come true so the effort is not
    wasted.

    Kind regards

    robert

    --=20
    remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
    http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/
     
    Robert Klemme, Aug 18, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. [snip]


    I created RubyMacros, an extension to ruby which adds lisp-style
    macros (and forms). see http://github.com/coatl/rubymacros or 'gem
    install rubymacros'. It can use some refinements, but it's basically
    as powerful as lisp macros as is.

    I don't understand Matz' objection to macros. He seems to be saying,
    "Macros would let you create DSLs, and to understand code using them,
    you'd have to understand the DSL as well." But people are already
    creating DSLs with ruby, so this problem largely already exists.
    Macros just enable better DSLs. Indeed, the capacity to, in effect,
    extend the syntax of the base language is one of the biggest selling
    features of macros.

    Robert, Matz, concrete criticisms of the macro system I have created
    are welcome.
     
    Caleb Clausen, Aug 19, 2010
    #3
  4. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    that phrase from marco is funny:
    "If I were that programmer, I would be very angry if I missed the
    opportunity to learn or use such a language."

    so marco, what are you if you're not a programmer? a Lisp evangelist?

    aside of this... Ruby already owns most of what can make a programming
    language awesome... and I hope it's not the end of its evolution yet!
    In my opinion, if you give Ruby some macros, no other language will come
    close to its power... its ego will over inflate, will get corrupted by its
    dark side, fall into hard drugs and start polluting everyone's space...
    what do you say?

     
    Louis-Philippe, Aug 19, 2010
    #4
  5. OT, but
    "If I were *that* programmer" is very different than "If I were *a*
    programmer".


    Don't really have anything to add to this though, as I've never really
    desired macros in Ruby myself (don't do alot of meta-programming in
    general).
     
    Paul Harrington, Aug 19, 2010
    #5
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.