I hope to recieve replies to my questions, and I value other persons 
subjective experience of "enjoyment", as asked for in my original post.

Thankyou for your effort at replying to my original post.

"Devin Mullins" <twifkak / comcast.net> wrote in message 
news:432E1A27.4060002 / comcast.net...
> 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?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>