RUBY vs COMMON LISP

Discussion in 'Ruby' started by fft1976, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. fft1976

    fft1976 Guest

    I much prefer CL to Ruby, but this argument is useless. How many lines
    of code do you need to read Brainfuck in Brainfuck?

    (If you wanted to show the inferiority of Ruby to Common Lisp, the
    shootout makes a much more compelling argument)
     
    fft1976, Aug 2, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Yes indeed. Ruby, thankfully, is designed to be nice to humans, not to pars=
    ers.

    martin
     
    Martin DeMello, Aug 2, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. El Domingo, 2 de Agosto de 2009, fft1976 escribi=F3:

    Is the above a language or a list of home tasks?

    =2D-=20
    I=F1aki Baz Castillo <>
     
    Iñaki Baz Castillo, Aug 2, 2009
    #3
  4. fft1976

    Ken Burgett Guest

    This is a vapid, silly discussion. Use whatever language you wish, but
    please don't bore the rest of us with it.

    Once you work out self parsing to your satisfaction, count the number of
    angels that can dance on the head of a pin.


    --=20
    Regards,

    Ken

    Seek wisdom through disbelief
     
    Ken Burgett, Aug 2, 2009
    #4
  5. fft1976

    fft1976 Guest

    By the way, here is in 1 line of BF, a complete BF reader that is able
    to
    read all the BF syntax needed to write it:

    ,+[-.,+]

    Here's how to try it:

    $ sudo apt-get install bf
    $ cat > reader.bf
    ,+[-.,+]
    $ bf reader.bf < reader.bf

    Your 150 lines don't look very impressive now, do they?

    Ruby < Lisp <<< BF!
     
    fft1976, Aug 3, 2009
    #5
  6. I specified a syntactic reader. Not just a reader. READ-SEQUENCE, or
    a loop on READ-CHAR is trivial both in Ruby and in Lisp.

    Building a data structure isomorphe to the syntax of the language is
    less trivial. First you will have to think about how to build an
    abstract data structure in BF. Have fun!
     
    Pascal J. Bourguignon, Aug 3, 2009
    #6
  7. fft1976

    Robert Dober Guest

    I personally think that LISP is beautiful and LISP code is ugly(1), I
    also believe this is not the right place to post lisp code unless all
    you want to do is to post lisp code.
    I do not recall that somebody told you this already; well we all did
    in indirect ways but maybe it is a good decision to tell you.
    And if you disagree, why not post to pastie or gist and give the link
    a prominent warning "LISP code ahead".
    On second thoughts the warning might not be necessary in your case ;)

    Cheers
    Robert

    (1) I am aware that ugly just means that my mind is not used to it.
    However this will probably hold for many folks on this list, so please
    forgive my somehow bold statement.
    R.


    --=20
    module Kernel
    alias_method :=EB, :lambda
    end
     
    Robert Dober, Aug 3, 2009
    #7
  8. [Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

    sometimes i just wish i had that big red delete button to remove endless,
    totally worth- and pointless discussions from the face of the earth...
    Don't you realize this is a ruby mailing list? if you hate the syntax -- go
    make your own friggin' language and stop bugging other people. your
    definition of beauty doesn't have to be everybody's. After all, this is not
    soviet russia or nazi germany here...

    hopefully a supreme being will soon intervene and remove this pointless
    thread from the space-time continuum... ;-)
     
    Fabian Streitel, Aug 3, 2009
    #8
  9. *poof* Look, it's Godwin!
     
    Joel VanderWerf, Aug 3, 2009
    #9
  10. Ah, how long has man debated the meaning of beauty, and truth for that matter?

    To quote Ben Franklin from "Poor Richard's Almanac"

    Beauty, like supreme dominion
    Is but supported by opinion


    --
    Rick DeNatale

    Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
    Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
    WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
    LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale
     
    Rick DeNatale, Aug 3, 2009
    #10
  11. fft1976

    Brian Adkins Guest

    LOL

    Just when I was about to get frustrated with someone extending the
    thread by saying the thread should stop, I saw your post :)
     
    Brian Adkins, Aug 3, 2009
    #11
  12. fft1976

    fft1976 Guest

    It is a syntactic reader. BF's syntax is just a sequence of
    characters. If you throw in illegal characters, the behavior is
    "undefined". Lisp's syntax is more complicated: it's a tree of
    identifiers (in its idealized form; of course, Common Lisp had to ****
    it up). Ruby's and Python's syntaxes are even more complicated.

    The above was to illustrate the wrongness of your argument that the
    length of a self-parser determines the usefulness of the language.
    Hell, I know that BF can be a little *too* awesome.

    By the way, Python's syntax is much better than Ruby's. Dollar signs
    in front of variables? WTF were the designers smoking? That's like
    Perl! Haven't you learned your lesson?

    Python's syntax might even be better than Lisp's, but it's certainly
    harder to parse.
     
    fft1976, Aug 4, 2009
    #12
  13. fft1976

    Carl Banks Guest


    Go away, troll.

    [This is cross-posted; I recommend that no one else follow up.]


    Carl Banks
     
    Carl Banks, Aug 4, 2009
    #13
  14. fft1976

    fft1976 Guest

    Lispers were having fun badmouthing other languages for no good
    reason:

    """
    Don't you realize how ugly Ruby syntax is?

    Here is in 150 lines of lisp, a simplified lisp reader that is able to
    read all the lisp syntax needed to write it.

    Try to parse Ruby syntax in Ruby and see how useless a language it
    is.
    """

    http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/52dde974d504ad54

    Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.
     
    fft1976, Aug 4, 2009
    #14
  15. fft1976

    lith Guest

    Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.

    IIRC you didn't parse ruby syntax in ruby. You thus didn't point out
    how wrong "you" was -- apart from the fact that CB, who you're
    addressing in your previous mail, most likely is a different person
    than PJB, who you're citing. So why exactly did you post this to ruby-
    talk? Just to show off some brainfuck code?
     
    lith, Aug 4, 2009
    #15
  16. fft1976

    alex23 Guest

    No, we don't like it when you try to drag comp.lang.python into
    whatever the hell it is you think you're doing.
     
    alex23, Aug 4, 2009
    #16
    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.