If Java people go to Scala, C# go to F#, where do Ruby people go for functional nirvana?

Question

I know alot of Java people have started looking at Scala since it runs on the JVM, and alot of people in the Microsoft world are looking at F#, but what does Ruby have as a natural functional successor?

In a pure FP sense Ruby doesn't lack anything, instead it has too much some may say. A functional language forces the programmer to not use global variables and other idioms so much (although it is possible to use globals in functional languages)

Answer 1

Ruby it self is a kind of Functional programming language, So I don't see any special dialects for FP using ruby.

Answer 2

Any version of Lisp should be fine.

Answer 3

Java people are using a language on the JVM and want a more functional one compatible with their runtime, so they go to Scala.

C# people are using a language on the CLR and want a more functional one compatible with their runtime, so they go to F#.

Ruby people are using a language that's already pretty functional, and they're using it on a number of underlying runtimes (JRuby, IronRuby, MRI, MacRuby, Rubinius, etc...). I don't think it has a natural functional successor, or even needs one.

Answer 4

In hype level, Haskell.

Answer 5

Ruby isn't as functional as say Lisp, but it is just functional enough that you can do some functional programming in a good fun way. (unlike trying to do functional programming in something like C#)

Also, it actually forces you into functional paradigms in some of it's syntax, such as the heavy use of blocks and yield. (which I fell in love with after learning Ruby).

Answer 6

Assuming Ruby people don't just go to the JVM themselves, I think most would adopt Erlang, being another dynamically typed language.