Re: "Python for Lisp Programmers"

[Paul Prescod <address@hidden>]

Scott McKay wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> BTW, I'm not trying to *prove* that CL is light-weight, because I think that
> it is not.  What I am trying to winkle out is, why do some people think
> that Python *is* light-weight, when Python is sooooo close to CL in so
> many ways?  I'm picking these two languages precisely because they
> are so similar, yet the perception of them is so different.

It boils down to: most people believe that they can get and start
hacking with Python in a couple of days and can't with CL. It may be in
part the parens. It may be in part the libraries. It may be in part the
advanced features like macros and generic functions. It may be in part
the number of implementations: "which to choose? What are their benefits
and costs." It may be the distance in both syntax and semantics from
languages people use today like Java and C. 

Maybe these are just misconceptions. 

 Paul Prescod