Apologies for resurrecting possibly dead threads, I'm catching up on 
ruby-talk mail.

At 7:19 AM +0900 7/26/01, Peter Hickman wrote:

[snip]

>It is not unusual that there are more Smalltalk people here than anywhere
>outside of a Smalltalk NG. Ruby does OO well and Smalltalk programmers are
>rather fussy about their OO, to me it is a sign that it has been done right.
>Now if we could design something to get the Lisp people on board...

Well, inasmuch as I count, I'm on board with both Ruby and especially 
the Ruby community, and I like to fancy myself both a Lisp zealot and 
Smalltalk affcionado (but then again, I'm a certified language 
junkie).

 From the Lisp side of things, Ruby does some things "right", but many 
true Lisp zealots will always equate that anything less than Lisp is 
still wrong. For me, I love Lisp (both Common Lisp and Scheme, which 
puts me apart from the Lisp community in some ways, since most people 
choose one or the other and stick with is as The One True Lisp), but 
I also appreciate diversity.

Peter Norvig has a a great comparison of Python and Lisp at 
<http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html>. A Ruby and Lisp comparison 
may be useful, but I think the comparison to Smalltalk is more 
apropos. Since the OO model of Ruby is more fundamentally complete 
and intrinsic than Python's, I think it shares more direct features 
with Smalltalk. Python shares more with Lisp because it's easy to do 
things in Python that are very Lispy, and both languages focus less 
on a particularly coherent OO model (Python's approach to objects has 
been talked about before in this thread, and I agree with the 
viewpoint that in Lisp and other functional languages like it, 
objects are not necessarily The Way [although Common Lisp does have 
CLOS, so they're there if you want them, but generic functions are 
more fundamental]).


-- 
Dan Moniz <dnm / pobox.com> [http://www.pobox.com/~dnm/]