From: Christian Neukirchen Date: 2006-07-11T05:42:57+09:00 Subject: Re: Why Ruby over Python? "Martin DeMello" writes: > On 7/10/06, Francis Cianfrocca 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 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? Because of the environment? Although you now could claim Lisp is image-based too... > martin -- Christian Neukirchen http://chneukirchen.org