[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Comparison of Lisp to Python



Hmmm. Even that thread doesn't seem to mention the fact that the object
systems are compared at the level of "has an object system"... when Python's
is plain old message passing and CLOS is:

    generic functions
    after, before, around methods
    method combinations
    update-instance-for-redefined-class
    update-instance-for-changed-class
    metaobject protocol
    etc

__Jason

----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Gay" <carlgay@attbi.com>
To: <info-dylan@ai.mit.edu>
Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2002 5:01 AM
Subject: Re: Comparison of Lisp to Python


> This has already been covered pretty well in comp.lang.python, it seems.
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=lisp+group:comp.lang.python.*&hl=en&lr=&ie
=UTF-8&selm=7xlmhddlr3.fsf%40ruckus.brouhaha.com&rnum=8
>
>
> At 09:48 PM 8/16/2002 +0100, Jason Trenouth wrote:
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: <robmyers@mac.com>
> >To: <info-dylan@ai.mit.edu>
> >Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2002 11:20 PM
> >Subject: Comparison of Lisp to Python
> >
> >
> >> Interesting link:
> >>
> >> http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html
> >>
> >> I don't agree with most of it, but as I say it's interesting. The point
> >> about reader macros relates to the recent discussion of syntactical
> >> regularity.
> >
> >Hmmm. Looks a bit clueless to me.
> >
> >Rating Common Lisp as less expressive than Python is a tell-tale sign.
The
> >author thinks CL exception handling is about catch-and-throw, and that CL
> >data types only get as far as association lists. The comments are decades
> >out of date even when written.
> >
> >The author also doesn't consider native compilation or true garbage
garbage
> >collection to be important criteria.
> >
> >Peter Norvig's comparison is more considered:
> >
> >http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html
> >
> >__Jason
>