From: Martin Coxall <pseudo.meta@...>
Date: 2006-10-03T17:42:48+09:00
Subject: Re: "Succinctness is Power", by Paul Graham

------=_Part_20323_18902556.1159864966149
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

>
>
>
> (Some fun w/ Lisp and Ruby: http://www.rubyquiz.com/quiz49.html)
>
> I once had this little conversation with a programmer tha I respect a lot:
> He: "Does Ruby have closures?"
> Me: "Yes"
> He: "Does Ruby have continuations?"
> Me: "Yes"
> He: "So it's basically just Scheme, but with an uglier syntax."


Coming from a LISPer, that's pretty rich. Schemers have no sense of irony.

I had no reply.
>

Pah. There were plenty. What about "extensive standard library", "flexible
OO architecture", "large ecosystem of modules", "namespaces/modularity",
"((((((fewer)(parentheses)))))))))))))))))))))))" etc.?

Martin

------=_Part_20323_18902556.1159864966149--