From: Piers Cawley <pdcawley@...>
Date: 2001-10-24T20:19:54+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:23178] Re: Bruce Eckel's opinion of Ruby

Pixel <pixel@mandrakesoft.com> writes:

> 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

Phew.

>> > 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)

Function/operator equivalency, with names for all ops. Easy currying.
Lazy iteration. Pairs. Coroutines and Continuations. Lots of cool
functional stuff on its way in Perl 6. But this probably isn't the
right place for this discussion.

-- 
Piers

   "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a language in
    possession of a rich syntax must be in need of a rewrite."
         -- Jane Austen?