I love Ruby, use it for most of my projects that don't require performance.

Nothing I would love more than a Ruby with a Common-Lisp like compiler and runtime. Unboxed types, native compilation, partial compilation, live image (Ruby has this but "faster Rubies" like Crystal don't), etc...

▲

Syzygies 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I came close to adopting Scala, many parallels to Ruby with vastly better performance.

I'm Ruby or Lean 4.

▲

rjsw 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

... or just use Common Lisp.

▲

dismalaf 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Which is what I do. One can dream though right? Of a world where Ruby stayed just a tad more Lisp-y and less Perl/C/Smalltalk/Unix-y.

Also I'm working on a DSL/Macros that give me more Ruby-esque quality of life things in Lisp.

	▲	ralphc 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Common Lisp, and even more so Racket, has reader macros. With a little help from LLMs you might be able to get a Ruby-like language that translates into Lisp. As a last resort look at Racket's "Rhombus" language, it's basically an infix, Python-like syntax on top of Racket. You can use that or see how they pull it off and add Ruby constructs to it.