Re: "Python for Lisp Programmers"

["Chris Double" <address@hidden>]

>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. 

The problem with taking this view is you mix the language vs. library boundaries. For example, Allegro Common Lisp has much of the libraries you mention:

  http://opensource.franz.com/index.html 

Some of these libraries (if not all) have been ported to run in some manner to other Common Lisps:

  http://sourceforge.net/projects/portableaserve/ 

Many other libraries are available and documented at the Common Lisp Wiki:

http://ww.telent.net/cliki/index

>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 you compare Common Lisp the language standard vs. Python the implementation, yes. If you compare a particular implementation of Common Lisp (or any language for that matter) vs. Python (or Perl, Ruby or similar) the differences in library support become less obvious.

Chris.