|
|
|
|
|
by Koromix
3589 days ago
|
|
I don't consider the Ruby ecosystem to be a good example of much. Idiomatic Ruby code is much slower and usually not more maintainable than C++. Actually, it may even be worse thanks to dynamic typing, which makes refactoring much more painful than it already is in large code bases. Well I guess it's good at making CRUD web sites. Hardly rocket science. |
|
Tinyclos is a fairly sophisticated implementation of OO and the MOP, written in Scheme.
Its descendants, COOPS, GOOPS, and others, are in most schemes today. Many of them are written in their respective dialect of scheme, with little or no specific compiler support.
SXML allows for writing XML in native scheme syntax.
The anaphoric macros (aif, acond, etc.) are all, well, macros, and thus use metaprogramming principles.
tclOO, [incr tcl], and other OO TCL systems are usually implemented in regular TCL.
Give or take, any large Lisp or Smalltalk codebase takes advantage of dynamic typing, late binding, and some form of metaprogramming.
However, you've made it clear that you hate Ruby, Dynamic Typing, and other such things, as given as much of metaprogramming requires this sort of flexibility, I very much doubt anything I say will convince you that dynamic languages are in any way useful.