From: Friedrich Dominicus <frido@...>
Date: 2002-08-27T15:41:32+09:00
Subject: Re: A Repeat: New Language After Ruby?

"Gavin Sinclair" <gsinclair@soyabean.com.au> writes:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Mauricio Fern�ndez" <batsman.geo@yahoo.com>
> To: "ruby-talk ML" <ruby-talk@ruby-lang.org>
> Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2002 10:17 AM
> Subject: Re: A Repeat: New Language After Ruby?
> 
> 
> >
> > Anyway Lisp, often cited as THE functional language, is typeless and
> > thus closer to Ruby than statically typed languages. Another argument to
> > sustain our claim of Ruby being a great functional OO language!
> >
> 
> I dispute that Lisp is THE functional language.  Mind you, I don't know much
> about Lisp or functional languages, but it seems to me that Lisp merely
> *encourages* functional programming.
Well that is not exactly true. Lisp can be used in a functional way,
but you do not have to. And jut for the record Lisp is not
typeless au contraire every object has it's special type. But like in
ruby you don't write down the types explicitly (well you do e.g in
defmethod) but that would be off-topic here.

Regards
Friedrich