From: MikkelFJ Date: 2001-07-25T20:35:18+09:00 Subject: [ruby-talk:18523] Re: Ruby as opposed to Python? "Todd Gillespie" wrote in message news:9jklb7$k18$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu... > HarryO wrote: > : In article <9jfvq1$ac4$1@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>, "Todd Gillespie" > : wrote: > : That's an interesting article. I hope Paul doesn't strain his neck > : looking up to Ruby :-). Exactly - he's argument is that only the programmer of the most powerful language will know that it is the most powerful language. But then how does he know the he is not mistakingly programming in Blup and wrongly assumes Blup to be the most powerful? In other words - why on earth should Lisp be more powerful than a host of other languages? So Lisp is Blup and Ruby is the most powerful language, I know that because I program in the most powerful language. > LISP macros offer an elegant way to dynamically redefine the > language. Their viability may be a consequence of the uniformity of LISP > syntax which I will define here as: But what makes it supposedly better than of a lot of other languages? I believe some of the functional languages can create functions on the fly and use them in higher order functions. Is that then less expressive than Lisp macros? And what about Ruby programs writing Ruby code? It may not be that elegant, but isn't that just as powerful? Mikkel