From: Pixel <pixel@...>
Date: 2001-10-24T19:59:20+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23174] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby

Piers Cawley <pdcawley@bofh.org.uk> writes:

[...]

> > Taking Python's (current) lack of real closures (I.E. lambda's don't
> > bind to local variables inside the scope in which they are created),
> 
> Python *still* doesn't have real closures? Coo. One more reason for
> this boy not switching yet.

not true anymore since python 2.1

> 
> > there's simply no comparison between Python and Ruby's functional
> > programming capabilities.
> 
> Okay, so I've not started to seriously code in Ruby, but Ruby's
> functional capabilities are what really get me excited about the
> language. (And they're what Larry's busy stealing for Perl 6...)

apart from named parameter (which is not functional only), i don't find many
stuff missing in perl's functional programming... (apart from type inference
and partial application of course)