RUBY vs COMMON LISP

Carl Banks pavlovevidence at gmail.com
Tue Aug 4 05:02:26 CEST 2009


On Aug 3, 7:51 pm, fft1976 <fft1... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 1:19 am, p... at informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > fft1976 <fft1... at gmail.com> writes:
> > > By the way, here is in 1 line of BF, a complete BF reader that is able
> > > to
> > > read all the BF syntax needed to write it:
>
> > > ,+[-.,+]
>
> > > Here's how to try it:
>
> > > $ sudo apt-get install bf
> > > $ cat > reader.bf
> > > ,+[-.,+]
> > > $ bf reader.bf < reader.bf
>
> > > Your 150 lines don't look very impressive now, do they?
>
> > > Ruby < Lisp <<< BF!
>
> > I specified a syntactic reader.  Not just a reader.
>
> It is a syntactic reader. BF's syntax is just a sequence of
> characters. If you throw in illegal characters, the behavior is
> "undefined". Lisp's syntax is more complicated: it's a tree of
> identifiers (in its idealized form; of course, Common Lisp had to fuck
> it up). Ruby's and Python's syntaxes are even more complicated.
>
> The above was to illustrate the wrongness of your argument that the
> length of a self-parser determines the usefulness of the language.
> Hell, I know that BF can be a little *too* awesome.
>
> By the way, Python's syntax is much better than Ruby's. Dollar signs
> in front of variables? WTF were the designers smoking? That's like
> Perl! Haven't you learned your lesson?
>
> Python's syntax might even be better than Lisp's, but it's certainly
> harder to parse.- Hide quoted text -


Go away, troll.

[This is cross-posted; I recommend that no one else follow up.]


Carl Banks




More information about the Python-list mailing list