is rebol an acceptable lisp
[1/3] from: rasmussen::bryan::gmail::com at: 21-Apr-2007 19:25
Hi,
There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable
LISP, and then steve yegge argued that lisp was not an acceptable lisp
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html
, Rebol has always struck me as sort of lisp-y so anyone have any
arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it
fails?
[2/3] from: carl::cybercraft::co::nz at: 22-Apr-2007 9:15
On Saturday, 21-April-2007 at 19:25:14 bryan rasmussen wrote,
>Hi,
>There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
>arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it
>fails?
Before the question can be asked, should't we first determine if Rebol's an acceptable
Rebol?
[3/3] from: tim-johnsons::web::com at: 22-Apr-2007 7:24
On Saturday 21 April 2007 17:25, bryan rasmussen wrote:
> Hi,
> There was a big blog brouhaha recently as to if Ruby was an acceptable
<<quoted lines omitted: 3>>
> arguments for Rebol as an acceptable lisp or opinions on where it
> fails?
:-) Better to ask the Common Lisp community if rebol is an acceptable lisp.
Given the diatribes I've seen written about NewLisp by CL folks, I
don't expect the CL people would consider rebol acceptable.
But then, should we care?
tim
--
Tim Johnson <tim-johnsons-web.com>
Palmer, Alaska, USA
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted