6 ms·
That’s really not true for Lisp. Ruby, like its predecessor Perl, is one of the finer examples of Greenspunning and shows a lot of Lisp influence. Unfortunate
by User23 10mo ago
That’s really not true for Lisp.
Ruby, like its predecessor Perl, is one of the finer examples of Greenspunning and shows a lot of Lisp influence.
Unfortunately I can’t read the actual submission right now due to the cloudflare outage.
- stonecharioteer 10mo agoOP here, you can read it here https://github.com/stonecharioteer/tech-blog/blob/main/content/posts/2025/ruby-symbols.md https://github.com/stonecharioteer/tech-blog/blob/main/conte...
- masklinn 10mo ago> That’s really not true for Lisp. It's completely true of lisp. Lisp strings are generally mutable (although literal strings may be interned and non-mutable, or even worse mutation of literal strings may be UB). Same for Smalltalk.
- kazinator 10mo agoIn a Lisp with mutable strings, like Common Lisp, those strings which are symbol names are still mutable.
- User23 10mo agoI meant more that symbols are a data structure with function and value slots. Last I knew strings, interned (which is also a Lisp reference) or not don't have that.