From: Logan Capaldo <logancapaldo@...>
Date: 2006-06-13T00:53:19+09:00
Subject: Re: Ruby for Highschoolers?


On Jun 12, 2006, at 8:25 AM, Matthew Smillie wrote:

> On Jun 12, 2006, at 12:42, Christian Neukirchen wrote:
>
>> Matthew Smillie <M.B.Smillie@sms.ed.ac.uk> writes:
>>
>>> Ruby does have a lot going for it in this regard: first-order
>>> functions,
>>
>> Did I miss something?
>
> I probably should have said "higher-order functions" or "first- 
> class functions".  I admit to a habitual disfluency when it comes  
> to this distinction**.  Or am I missing what you think you're missing?
>
> matthew smillie
>
> ** in my defence, they're very closely related, and first-order  
> functions are a subset of higher-order functions, so I claim that I  
> was technically correct (which is the best kind of correct).
>

I think what you're missing that he's missing is that Scheme has  
first-class functions (higher order functions), and is in fact so  
wrapped up in them that it's almost useless (or at least not very  
idiomatic scheme) without them. IOW, when comparing Ruby to Scheme  
that's probably not the point to emphasize ;)