RUBY vs COMMON LISP

[fft1976]

Don't you realize how ugly Ruby syntax is?

Here is in 150 lines of lisp, a simplified lisp reader that is able to
read all the lisp syntax needed to write it.

Try to parse Ruby syntax in Ruby and see how useless a language it is.

I much prefer CL to Ruby, but this argument is useless. How many lines
of code do you need to read Brainfuck in Brainfuck?

(If you wanted to show the inferiority of Ruby to Common Lisp, the
shootout makes a much more compelling argument)

 

[Martin DeMello]

I much prefer CL to Ruby, but this argument is useless. How many lines
of code do you need to read Brainfuck in Brainfuck?

Yes indeed. Ruby, thankfully, is designed to be nice to humans, not to pars=
ers.

martin

 

[Iñaki Baz Castillo]

El Domingo, 2 de Agosto de 2009, fft1976 escribi=F3:

Is the above a language or a list of home tasks?

=2D-=20
I=F1aki Baz Castillo <[email protected]>

 

[Ken Burgett]

This is a vapid, silly discussion. Use whatever language you wish, but
please don't bore the rest of us with it.

Once you work out self parsing to your satisfaction, count the number of
angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

El Domingo, 2 de Agosto de 2009, fft1976 escribi=F3:


Is the above a language or a list of home tasks?

--=20
Regards,

Ken

Seek wisdom through disbelief

 

[fft1976]

I much prefer CL to Ruby, but this argument is useless. How many lines
of code do you need to read Brainfuck in Brainfuck?

(If you wanted to show the inferiority of Ruby to Common Lisp, the
shootout makes a much more compelling argument)

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!

 

[Pascal J. Bourguignon]

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. READ-SEQUENCE, or
a loop on READ-CHAR is trivial both in Ruby and in Lisp.

Building a data structure isomorphe to the syntax of the language is
less trivial. First you will have to think about how to build an
abstract data structure in BF. Have fun!

 

[Robert Dober]

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. =A0Not just a reader. =A0READ-SEQUENCE, o= r
a loop on READ-CHAR is trivial both in Ruby and in Lisp.

I personally think that LISP is beautiful and LISP code is ugly(1), I
also believe this is not the right place to post lisp code unless all
you want to do is to post lisp code.
I do not recall that somebody told you this already; well we all did
in indirect ways but maybe it is a good decision to tell you.
And if you disagree, why not post to pastie or gist and give the link
a prominent warning "LISP code ahead".
On second thoughts the warning might not be necessary in your case

Cheers
Robert

(1) I am aware that ugly just means that my mind is not used to it.
However this will probably hold for many folks on this list, so please
forgive my somehow bold statement.
R.


--=20
module Kernel
alias_method :=EB, :lambda
end

 

[Fabian Streitel]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

sometimes i just wish i had that big red delete button to remove endless,
totally worth- and pointless discussions from the face of the earth...

Don't you realize how ugly Ruby syntax is?

Don't you realize this is a ruby mailing list? if you hate the syntax -- go
make your own friggin' language and stop bugging other people. your
definition of beauty doesn't have to be everybody's. After all, this is not
soviet russia or nazi germany here...

hopefully a supreme being will soon intervene and remove this pointless
thread from the space-time continuum... ;-)

 

[Joel VanderWerf]

Don't you realize this is a ruby mailing list? if you hate the syntax -- go
make your own friggin' language and stop bugging other people. your
definition of beauty doesn't have to be everybody's. After all, this is not
soviet russia or nazi germany here...

hopefully a supreme being will soon intervene and remove this pointless
thread from the space-time continuum... ;-)

*poof* Look, it's Godwin!

 

[Rick DeNatale]

sometimes i just wish i had that big red delete button to remove endless,
totally worth- and pointless discussions from the face of the earth...

Ah, how long has man debated the meaning of beauty, and truth for that matter?

To quote Ben Franklin from "Poor Richard's Almanac"

Beauty, like supreme dominion
Is but supported by opinion


--
Rick DeNatale

Blog: http://talklikeaduck.denhaven2.com/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/RickDeNatale
WWR: http://www.workingwithrails.com/person/9021-rick-denatale
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/rickdenatale

 

[Brian Adkins]

*poof* Look, it's Godwin!

LOL

Just when I was about to get frustrated with someone extending the
thread by saying the thread should stop, I saw your post

 

[fft1976]

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 ****
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.

 

[Carl Banks]

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 ****
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

 

[fft1976]

On Aug 3, 1:19 am, (e-mail address removed) (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:

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 ****
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

Lispers were having fun badmouthing other languages for no good
reason:

"""
Don't you realize how ugly Ruby syntax is?

Here is in 150 lines of lisp, a simplified lisp reader that is able to
read all the lisp syntax needed to write it.

Try to parse Ruby syntax in Ruby and see how useless a language it
is.
"""

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/52dde974d504ad54

Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.

 

[lith]

Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.

IIRC you didn't parse ruby syntax in ruby. You thus didn't point out
how wrong "you" was -- apart from the fact that CB, who you're
addressing in your previous mail, most likely is a different person
than PJB, who you're citing. So why exactly did you post this to ruby-
talk? Just to show off some brainfuck code?

 

[alex23]

Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.

No, we don't like it when you try to drag comp.lang.python into
whatever the hell it is you think you're doing.