Re: "Python for Lisp Programmers"

[Paul Prescod <address@hidden>]

Scott McKay wrote:
> 
> ...
>
> Peter draws a pretty good 1-to-1 (and "onto") mapping from CL
> to Python, which makes me wonder how Lisp can be heavy
> (which I think it is) and Python can be light (which I have not
> decided about).

What about things like the CLOS MOP, generic functions, optional type
annotations and macros?

Also, part of what makes Python lightweight is the libraries. There are
built-in libraries (standardized across implementations and platforms)
for doing the sort of hacking that most programmers need to do today:
file manipulation, sockets, HTTP, HTML and XML. A distribution of Common
Lisp might be lighweight if it supported the same stuff, but CL the
standard predates many of the technologies that programmers need to work
with. 

If we agreed that Python were heavy, then what of Perl? And what is
left, just Scheme?

 Paul Prescod