&gt;  Those are all really the same language with slightly different wording and details. Like german and english.<p>I&#x27;d argue you only think that because they&#x27;ve opted for a familiar syntax. E.g. the object model (or lack of one) is vastly different between these languages and they employ drastically different type systems.<p>Ruby is closer to Smalltalk than C in most respects other than syntax, for example, and provides most of the abilities lisp gives you, including the ability to define domain-specific languages. The major aspect you&#x27;re not getting from Ruby would be homoiconicity.<p>Here&#x27;s and article comparing Lisp and Ruby[1].<p>I&#x27;m not saying learning languages outside of this group isn&#x27;t important, but that a lot of the reason why languages like Lisp and APL are seen as so different has more to do with syntax than semantics. Most people don&#x27;t know what the semantic differences even are, because getting past the alien syntax is too much effort. When you do, the differences aren&#x27;t all <i>that</i> huge.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.randomhacks.net&#x2F;2005&#x2F;12&#x2F;03&#x2F;why-ruby-is-an-acceptable-lisp&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.randomhacks.net&#x2F;2005&#x2F;12&#x2F;03&#x2F;why-ruby-is-an-accepta...</a>