\_ SMTP quoth Tom Bradford on 5/7/2001 10:16 as having spake thusly:
\_
\_ "David A. Sinck" wrote:
\_ > 
\_ > \_ SMTP quoth Tom Bradford on 5/6/2001 19:38 as having spake thusly:
\_ > \_
\_ > \_ I suppose I could make blanket statements like "Ruby Sucks", but it
\_ > \_ doesn't.  Actually, no language sucks (except maybe Scheme)
\_ > 
\_ > *straps on Holy Armor*
\_ > 
\_ > Would you care to explain why you don't like Scheme?  Given that you
\_ > think only *Scheme* apparently sucks, I'd like to know the reasons
\_ > why, compared to say, Prolog, Lisp, C, and Perl.
\_ 
\_ Jeez, it was a friggin' joke... Ligthen up you zealots.

My bad then.  I thought there was about to be a fun conversation about
languages. :-)  If I claim to be recovering from an illness, can I not
go to the padded room this time?

I will say that I don't much care for languages that don't have an
'eval' in them.  I want that string to be *code* and I want it now!

Lisp & friends, Perl, Python, Javascript all qualify.  Probably lots
of others.  Typical mortals like myself don't need eval often, but
when you do, oh is it good to have it.

David

Remember: A cubicle is just a padded room without a door.