From: Martin DeMello <martindemello@...>
Date: 2006-07-10T15:44:27+09:00
Subject: Re: Why Ruby over Python?

On 7/10/06, Francis Cianfrocca <garbagecat10@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Except just about all Lisps are dynamically-typed, not lazy and not
> > side-effect free either...  Haskell would make a good addition to the
> > taxonomy on itself.--
> >
> Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen@gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org
>
> I guess you could say that. I used to write compilers for a living, so
> perhaps my perspective is different. To me the essential trait that
> distiguishes the Lisp-like family is that they're all based on
> lambda-calculus. Everything Algol-like (including Ruby) is basically a
> Turing machine. SQL and similar languages are off to the side, and Fortran I
> guess would have to be classed as Turing-like. We're way off thread here, so
> if you want to have the last word, be my guest ;-).

From what little I've seen of Smalltalk it looks pretty lispy to me -
why does it get a category of its own?

martin