Greg,

What languages you deem "enjoyable" is very much a personal choice, and 
one determined only through exploration and experimentation. It sounds 
like you've explored -- you seem to have a decent list of languages of 
which you're aware. Now you have to do the second part -- experiment 
with them.

That's why I didn't answer your question directly. Rather, I latched 
onto the only context-independent criterion of yours that I found -- 
"not imperative" -- and gave you a list of non-imperative languages. For 
me, Ruby's been the most fun language I've run into. 'swhy I'm here. 
BASIC was fun back in the day. But YMMV.

Yes, my post included humor. Possibly, my sense of humor is different 
from yours.

>APL, Eiffel, Erlang, Haskell, Io, Joy, Lisp, Lua, Mathematica, Mozart/Oz, 
>OCaml, Prolog, REXX, Scala, Scheme, Self, and Smalltalk are all the 
>legitimate, 'alternative' languages that I recognize (by name only, for 
>the most part) from that wiki page, so maybe that makes them more popular. 
>Now get to Googlin'.
>  
>
>
>> ? I can't believe my eyes.
>  
>
What makes you question them? APL? Check extremeprogramming@yahoogroups. 
There's a guy there who swears by the language.

>Can someone tell me if I am talking to a troll?
>  
>
If by "troll" you mean, "just writing to see what kind of reaction I can 
get out of you," then, no. If by "troll," you mean, "guy who doesn't 
type anything of substance," then you've got yourself a matter of 
opinion, there, and mine would probably be different from yours. 
Historically, at least, ruby-talk seems to have a opinion of me that 
lies somewhere between neutral and positive.

Devin

Greg Lorriman wrote:

>"Devin Mullins" <twifkak / comcast.net> wrote in message 
>news:432DEC60.7060601 / comcast.net...
>  
>
>>There's plenty of places you can find recommendations for languages.
>>    
>>
>hmmm. I didn't ask for other places for recommendations for other languages. 
>I have already visited many places; I am surprised you did not infer this 
>from my post.
>
>I posted in the hope of personal opinions of Ruby programmers specifically, 
>since they bring a more pertinant spirit to my quest (particularly 
>enjoyableness).
>
>  
>
>>- this mailing list (the archives will have references to all the ones you 
>>meantion, plus other ones such as Io, and D, and boo, and Groovy - of 
>>which Io is the only one you might call "far out" - and, oh yeah, 
>>Smalltalk)
>>    
>>
>
>Seems like you did and didn't read my post at the same time. Very strange.
>
>  
>
>>Here's two languages you're not likely to find immediately. Presented for 
>>no apparent reason.
>>    
>>
>
>....I prefer reasons.
>
>  
>
>>1. http://www.erights.org/e/satan/ -- I haven't actually read this paper, 
>>but it seems topical, so maybe somebody else will, and provide us a book 
>>report. :)
>>2. http://www.madore.org/~david/programs/unlambda/ -- The purest, simplest 
>>programming language ever, and it's functional, to boot. Smart combination 
>>of a few simple constructs allows for a whole world of flexibility.
>>    
>>
>
>sounds kinda interesting. But is it enjoyable? Is it practical? I was 
>careful to list what I am looking for quite prominently.
>
>  
>
>>Have fun.
>>    
>>
>
>I am trying.
>
>  
>
>>Devin
>>APL, Eiffel, Erlang, Haskell, Io, Joy, Lisp, Lua, Mathematica, Mozart/Oz, 
>>OCaml, Prolog, REXX, Scala, Scheme, Self, and Smalltalk are all the 
>>legitimate, 'alternative' languages that I recognize (by name only, for 
>>the most part) from that wiki page, so maybe that makes them more popular. 
>>Now get to Googlin'.
>>    
>>
>
> ? I can't believe my eyes.
>
>Can someone tell me if I am talking to a troll?
>
>
>
>
>  
>