Lisp and Ruby 336
sdelmont writes "The developers of Rubinius, an experimental Ruby interpreter inspired by SmallTalk, have been discussing the possibility of adding a Lisp dialect to their VM. Pat Eyler collected some ideas and opinions from the people involved and it makes for some interesting reading. For many, Ruby already is an acceptable Lisp, and the language itself started as a 'perlification' of Lisp (even Matz says so) so it is perhaps fitting and might help explain why the whole idea feels right. Now, if someone added support for VB and gave it the respect it deserves, the world would be a better place."
Genuine question about perl vs ruby (Score:4, Interesting)
Having perl as it is, what are the reasons to take a look at ruby. Mind you, I am not saying that these reasons do not exist, I guess I was just lazy to find it out by myself and then again, nobody has yet offered any compelling reason. I have taken a good look at ruby, clean syntax and all, but really I couldn't find something really compelling.
An interesting phenomenon is that most stuff that people perceive as a reason to go to ruby from perl, are available in perl too, but somehow they offer those stuff an novel.
Please don't take me the wrong way, I can testify that ruby is indeed a kick ass piece of work, I am trying to find real reasons to use it along side with perl.
So, fire away your opinions!
VB is powerful but not respected (Score:1, Interesting)
I truly respect Java and C++ and others. But for its contributions in business apps VB deserves its due respect.
Sorry the post went little off-topic. Readers' and moderators' desecration anticipated.
Re:VB is powerful but not respected (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe this was true in the very early 1990s. But not anymore. Python [python.org] is a far superior language. It's just as easy to learn as VB, you get a far faster development cycle, and your applications are actually portable.
Re:Performance, anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
As funny as your comment is, it made me wonder... There is a very loud pro-Lisp community that tells everyone who is not using Lisp that they should since it solves most of the problems they have in the first place. OK, fair enough. But I have that strange feeling that assuming the developers to be usually very smart and very lazy, we would see them all convert to Lisp if it really was the ultimate answer [1].
And what makes me think that Lisp was and still is widely ignored? There are a couple of points here but the most important is: we don't really see a large, consistent standard library for Lisp. So we could easily turn the Greenspun's 10th Rule backwards to say: any sufficiently complicated Common Lisp program contains an ad hoc, informally specified, bug ridden, slow implementation of half of Java's standard library.
So, where's the catch? Why isn't Lisp popular if it's so 1337?
[1] But we know it's 42.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby (Score:1, Interesting)
The comparison to Lisp, to me, and I actually am a computer science grad, is really interesting. You see, perl has maybe the shittiest syntax of any regularly used language, either it or C++. You can take snips of it and they can mean radically different things syntactically depending on the program around them. You can do beautiful things in both and you can do terrible things, incredibly terrible things. (I'm not against Perl or C++, just that a large amount of code in those languages has rather ugly looking syntax)
Lisp, doesn't have syntax. Aside from macros. You program in abstract syntax trees. Why you'd want to make that more perl-like or anything-like is foolish, it's perfect as it is. Maybe you want ASTs to be formatted differently but it's still ASTs. There is no syntax to fix, if you with to fix it produce a language and take the ASTs and make them LISP compliant. It's like taking a muscle car and then trying to make it a bit more prius like, it flies against everything that makes the muscle car a muscle car. I'm trying to make black just a little bit more white. It seems to me that you don't really understand Lisp if you're trying to replace it with Ruby or make it more perl like. Possibly just a side-effect of the pragmatic guys, they suggest learning a new language every year and most of their loyalists spend a couple weeks, read a book or two and call it "learned" when maybe they should spend half their coding time coding in it. There is nothing remotely lisp-like about Ruby, not even close; closures? That's it? come one.
So Ruby is the output of a plan to take a syntax-less language and make it a bit more like a language with, IMO, one of the shittiest syntaxes around? How does any of this help me write programs that are more correct, more reliable and have more features and do it in less time? Sure, there is a tiny bit less typing because of the syntax..
Re:Performance, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
I still don't seem what advantage Ruby has over Lisp or Smalltalk; it is no more expressive, and current implementations generate slower code.
[1] A List programmer will tell you Smalltalk is a great language, because you can implement a Lisp interpreter in a few lines of Smalltalk. A Smalltalk programmer will tell you Lisp is a great language, because you can implement a Smalltalk interpreter in a few lines of Lisp...
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves... (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess you don't want to try SNOOZ, which is my COBOL-ification of VB.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves... (Score:3, Interesting)
Or.
Perhaps you might want to extend your remit to advocating the technologies you would choose, to the business management. Perhaps you might even want to create a development environment for personnel to produce adhoc applications in the technologies you prefer. Or shock, horror, you could even provide that service within the IT department and actively go looking for opportunities to improve productivity.
Re:Because you'll end up at Lisp. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Performance, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
1: It is popular among people who are solving problems LISP is well suited for.
2: There are other languages that are more suited for what most developers do.
3: There are other languages that are more successfully marketed.
I've earned more money in less time using COBOL than any other language but you don't hear me telling kids to pick it up.
Nor do you see me selling COBOL for new projects.
I don't think all of this "what language is 'leet" talk is productive or illuminating. You have a problem, so you use the best tool you can find and learn how to use to solve that problem. If anything I find LISP excels at allowing me to solve certain problems in very interesting ways. Ways that perhaps using the currently popular language wouldn't have allowed.
Re:Performance, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
True Dat. Between Perl, Python and Ruby. Ruby is the slowest by far. And be careful how you write your code. Sometimes attaching method.method.method is about the worse way you can go, even though they claim it is the Ruby Way. Bah! I'll take perl. At least it has docs.
Re:I use Common Lisp because of its 'white hot' sp (Score:3, Interesting)
However, most of the interpreted languages which have appeared to resolve their speed issues have done so by some form of on the fly compilation. So yes, ruby could move up to even with the lisps in that way.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby (Score:4, Interesting)
Cumbersome? Which is this, Perl or Ruby? Trick question -- it's both. What exactly about Ruby's way is cumbersome?
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves... (Score:3, Interesting)
Additionally, if VBA didn't exist you'd have to write C++ to do simple macro'ing in Office products. It's profitable, but it bites the big one as far as interesting programming jobs are concerned. Trust me on that one.
Re:Genuine question about perl vs ruby (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing with Ruby this far is that it's still in its first major version by version number. There's not one bit of the Ruby design that I'd like to change dramatically, but there's a bunch of problems that arise from its current implementation. The one-pass compiling (which while surely easier to implement probably has performance and optimization implications down the road), non-concurrent thread policy and strings that default to the mythical "unspecified" encoding are some; things that all look to be set for correction in the upcoming Ruby 2.
Then there's the lack of thorough documentation, and the air emitted by rubygems as something tacked on instead of mostly integrated (like CPAN). I am hopeful that these things will resolve themselves in due time, but as you say, Ruby is already a language to be reckoned with.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are a number of interesting, unproven, and contradictory assumptions built-in to your statement:
1) All VB code is a mess
2) VB applications are successful enough to justify being maintained
3) Despite the success of the application implemented in VB, it makes sense to rewrite it in another language
4) The orginal developer isn't willing revise it, but somehow some other developer is willing to rewrite it.
"Enabling non developers make production code is *NOT* a good thing, I think most people with some experience in the industry will agree with this."
If by "non developers" you mean VB programmers, and given that a fairly large percentage of people in the industry with some experience are VB programmers than your statement is incorrect.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves... (Score:4, Interesting)
For years even though I swore at VB I didn't really hate it. Then I caught it in an arithmetic mistake. I, a human, caught a computer at an arithmetic mistake. Understand, I'm not talking about the program, I traced the error down to one specific statement in a program, placed print statements before and after it. VB made an arithmetic mistake. Then I started to wonder about all the larger numbers that I hadn't checked over the years.
That was the last program that I ever wrote that used VB for arithmetic. The next one I used an external Eiffel program to do the arithmetic. The one after that I had it all happen in an Excel spreadsheet. Since them I've moved to Python and Ruby...and totally off of MS systems.
I don't believe that anyone who is a decent programmer likes VB, though many use it due to coercions of various forms. (You mention interesting jobs.) Most people probably haven't noticed that it sometimes lies. (And maybe they've stopped doing that. This happened in MSAccess2000, around 2000.)
No dialect of BASIC has ever been a decent programming language, throughout it's history. (Well, there are lots of versions that I haven't tried, so that's excessive. Some people said that Pick Basic was quite good.) It strongly encourages bad programming habits and discourages several good ones. There are dialects of BASIC in which it is actually impossible to write a decent program. Or a stable one (different group). This isn't to assert that it can't be very convenient. Especially in environments that are designed to encourage it's use.
Re:Performance, anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)