Years ago, I looked at Ruby and decided to ignore it. Ruby wasn't as popular as Python, and it wasn't as powerful as LISP. So why should I bother?

Of course, we could turn those criteria around. What if Ruby were more popular than LISP, and more powerful than Python? Would that be enough to make Ruby interesting?

Before answering this question, we should decide what makes LISP so powerful. Paul Graham has written eloquently about LISP's virtues. But, for the sake of argument, I'd like to boil them down to two things:

LISP is a dense functional language. LISP has programmatic macros.

As it turns out, Ruby compares well as a functional language, and it fakes macros better than I'd thought.

Ruby is a denser functional language than LISP

A dense language lets you say things concisely, without obfuscation. You can see more of your program in one glance, and there aren't as many places for bugs to hide. Beyond a certain point, the only way to make programs denser is to use more powerful abstractions.

One particularly powerful abstraction is lambda . Using lambda , you can create a new function on the fly, pass it to other functions, and even store it for later use. For example, if you wanted to double each number in a list, you might write:

(mapcar (lambda (n) (* n 2)) mylist)

mapcar creates a new list by transforming each element of mylist . The transformation, in this case, could be read as "for each value n, multiply n by two." In JavaScript, you'd write lambda as function , which is perhaps a bit clearer:

map ( function ( n ) { return n * 2 }, mylist )

Of course, this is only a hint of what you can do with lambda . Languages which favor this style of programming are called functional languages, because they work with functions. A dense functional language can be very concise indeed, and quite clear once you learn to read it.

How does Ruby stack up against LISP for functional programming? Let's consider Paul Graham's canonical example, a function which creates an accumulator:

(defun foo (n) (lambda (i) (incf n i)))

This code is marginally shorter in Ruby, and the notation will be more familiar to C hackers:

def foo ( n ) lambda { | i | n += i } end acc = foo 3 acc . call ( 1 ) # --> 4 acc . call ( 10 ) # --> 14 acc . call ( 0 ) # --> 14

But there's an interesting special case in Ruby which saves us even more typing. Consider a (very silly) function which takes a lambda as an argument:

;; Call 'fn' once for each natural number. (defun each-natural-number (fn) (loop for n from 1 do (funcall fn n))) ;; Print 1, 2, 3... (each-natural-number (lambda (n) (format t "~D~%" n)))

Now, we could write the same function in Ruby:

def each_natural_number ( fn ) n = 0 loop { fn . call ( n += 1 ) } end each_natural_number ( lambda { | n | puts n })

But we can do better. Let's get rid of lambda and fn using yield :

def each_natural_number n = 0 loop { yield n += 1 } end each_natural_number { | n | puts n }

Yes, yield is a special-purpose hack, and yes, it only works for functions which take a single lambda . But in heavily functional code, yield buys us a lot. Compare:

[ 1 , 2 , 3 ]. map { | n | n * n }. reject { | n | n % 3 == 1 }

(remove-if (lambda (n) (= (mod n 3) 1)) (mapcar (lambda (n) (* n n)) '(1 2 3)))

In a large program, the difference adds up. (In LISP's defense, it's possible to write a reader macro which makes lambda more concise. But this is rarely done.)

Ruby gives you about 80% of what you want from macros

At this point, the LISP hackers are saying, "A good syntax for lambda is nice, but what about macros?" And this is a good question. LISP macros are functions that:

Run in the compiler, and Transform custom syntax into raw LISP.

The most common use of LISP macros is to avoid typing lambda quite so much:

(defmacro with-each-natural-number (n expr) `(each-natural-number (lambda (,n) ,expr))) (with-each-natural-number n (format t "~D~%" n))

defmacro defines a function that takes a list as an argument, and returns another list. In this example, our macro is called every time the compiler sees with-each-natural-number . It uses LISP's "backquote" syntax to quickly construct a list from a template, filling in n and expr. The list is then passed back to the compiler.

Of course, this macro would be useless in Ruby, because it's working around a problem we don't have.

The second most common use of LISP macros is to create mini-languages for defining stuff:

;; Generate some bindings to our database ;; using a hypothetical "LISP on Rails." (defmodel <order> () (belongs-to <customer>) (has-many <item> :dependent? t))

Using Ruby on Rails, we could write:

class Order < ActiveRecord :: Base belongs_to :customer has_many :items , :dependent => true end

Here, belongs_to is a class function. When called, it adds a bunch of member functions to Order . The implementation is pretty ugly, but the interface is excellent.

The real test of any macro-like functionality is how often it gets used to build mini-languages. And Ruby scores well here: In addition to Rails, there's Rake (for writing Makefiles), Needle (for connecting components), OptionParser (for parsing command-line options), DL (for talking to C APIs), and countless others. Ruby programmers write everything in Ruby.

Of course, there's lots of advanced LISP macros which can't be easily ported to Ruby. In particular, macros which actually compile mini-languages haven't appeared yet, although they might be possible with enough work. (Ryan Davis has done some promising work in this direction with ParseTree and RubyInline, and I'll be writing about related techniques as I discover them.)

Ruby's libraries, community, and momentum are good

So if LISP is still more powerful than Ruby, why not use LISP? The typical objections to programming in LISP are:

There aren't enough libraries. We can't hire LISP programmers. LISP has gone nowhere in the past 20 years.

These aren't overwhelming objections, but they're certainly worth considering.

Once upon a time, Common Lisp's standard library was considered huge. But today, it seems painfully tiny. Java's manuals fill a wall, and Perl's CPAN archive has a module for anything you can imagine. Common Lisp, in comparison, doesn't even have standard way to talk to the network.

Similarly, LISP programmers are scarce. If you're around Boston, there's a small pool of grizzled hackers who can very nearly work magic. Elsewhere, there's a thin scattering of curious young hackers. But LISP has always been a minority language.

Ruby, on the other hand, is growing rapidly in popularity. The big driver seems to be Rails, and the ramp-up started in late 2004. If you're trying to launch a company, it's more-or-less a cliché that every potential employee is a Rails nut. Rails will soon trickle back into ordinary web consulting, and from there--eventually--into big business.

Ruby has also been around long enough to develop a good standard library, and a large archive of add-on libraries. If you need to download a web page, parse RSS, generate graphs, or call a SOAP API, you're all set.

Now, given a choice between a powerful language, and popular language, it may make excellent sense to pick the powerful one. But if the difference in power is minor, being popular has all sorts of nice advantages. In 2005, I'd think long and hard before choosing LISP over Ruby. I'd probably only do it if I needed optimized code, or macros which acted as full-fledged compilers.

(Thank you to Michael Fromberger for reviewing an early draft of this essay.)