On Friday, September 19, 2008 at 11:56:29 AM UTC-4, André Thieme wrote:
> William James schrieb:
> > On Sep 12, 6:51 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
> >> William James <w_a_x_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> >>> Ruby:
> >> If you want to keep writing Ruby in cll,
> >
> > I don't want to, but I feel that it is important
> > to make the superiority of COMOL-LISP glaringly
> > evident to all window-shoppers who read this group.
> >
> > This will be done simply by showing that Ruby code
> > is always more prolix, more convoluted, less elegant,
> > and less readable to a normal human than CLISP code.
> >
> > Admittedly, my attempts so far have been rather
> > unsuccessful. I hope to improve with practice.
> To be successful you should show algorithms to solve the problem
> which can’t be expressed with the same ease in Lisp.
> In all of your examples you only made use of facilities which Ruby
> got from Lisp (like loops, blocks, injects, ...). Of course this can
> not impress anyone here, because all this stuff already is in Lisp.
> A Haskell fan can at least bring in implicit currying and pattern
> matching. This can of course also be done in Lisp, but at least such
> attempts make much more sense, because these techniques can indeed
> reduce program complexity.
> By saving three keystrokes with Rubys map vs Lisps mapcar no piece
> of software becomes easier to understand (nor can it be written faster
> in any meaningful way).
> As long you show only some functions calls, a bit imperative style here
> some funky functional style there you won’t be able to beat Lisp, as it
> can be done the same way. Bring in abstractions. Look at Haskell or
> Prolog or Mercury. They offer abstractions which are not always so
> very easy to implement in Lisp.
>
> André
> --
Kenny was right #JusticeForKenny