# Will rubinius Be An Acceptable Lisp?

**URL:** <https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/will-rubinius-be-an-acceptable-lisp/81851>\
**Category:** Ruby\
**Created:** [January 15, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/will-rubinius-be-an-acceptable-lisp/81851 "2007-01-15T19:51:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Pit\_C](https://www.ruby-forum.com/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/p/278dde/32.png) [@Pit\_C](https://www.ruby-forum.com/u/Pit_C)\
**Post date:** [January 15, 2007, 7:51pm UTC](https://www.ruby-forum.com/t/will-rubinius-be-an-acceptable-lisp/81851/1 "2007-01-15T19:51:38Z")

</div>

Hi,

as promised in ruby-talk:231855, I’m writing about an interesting blog  
entry I found, which I had hoped to see here on ruby-talk too:

[On Ruby: Will rubinius Be An Acceptable Lisp](http://on-ruby.blogspot.com/2007/01/will-rubinius-be-acceptable-lisp.html)

It talks about plans to implement a LISP like syntax on top of the  
Rubinius Ruby interpreter. Interesting questions and answers. Don’t be  
scared by the syntax, instead welcome the possibilities (i.e. macros).

Regards,  
Pit