Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
92% Positive
Analyzed from 615 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#lisp#ruby#macros#smalltalk#code#object#more#functional#operations#expressions
Discussion Sentiment
Analyzed from 615 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
Discussion (21 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Other imperative languages that support functional code either make you do things imperatively to get the "logical" ordering of functional operations like I feel Lisp pushes you to do, or they do something like Ruby where things can be chained left to right in a "single" statement even for operations that were not thought of ahead of time by the creators of opaque data structures you later need to operate on. (Everything is a user-extensible object like Ruby, unified function call syntax in D, extension methods in C#, or pipelines of structured objects in PowerShell.)
https://docs.racket-lang.org/threading/introduction.html
Put the macros back! It would be so cool!
> Matz has said as much. He’s described Ruby’s design as starting from a simple Lisp, stripping out macros and s-expressions, then adding an object system, blocks, and Smalltalk-style methods. The features most Rubyists fall in love with aren’t the object-oriented ones. They’re the functional ones, dressed in friendlier clothes.
But yeah, macros and S-expressions make it easier to write your own DSLs.
(Matz speaking at the LL2 conference some 20+ years ago)
Nothing I would love more than a Ruby with a Common-Lisp like compiler and runtime. Unboxed types, native compilation, partial compilation, live image (Ruby has this but "faster Rubies" like Crystal don't), etc...
Also I'm working on a DSL/Macros that give me more Ruby-esque quality of life things in Lisp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qc7HmhrgTuQ