*caution* severely OT!!
sterling at camdensoftware.com
Wed Sep 14 14:49:23 UTC 2011
Quoth Michel Talon on Wednesday, 14 September 2011:
> Chad wrote:
> > I really don't think I'd say that Common Lisp is "syntactically very
> > close to python [sic]". It's not fair to either Common Lisp or Python,
> On the contrary python is strikingly similar to a simplified version of
> lisp without parentesis. It is not an original opinion by far, see the
> following post of an eminent lisp hacker:
> Of course lisp is considerably more complex if you begin to use more
> exotic features, but if you confine yourself to translating python code,
> it may be almost litteral translation, as explained in the link above.
The OO systems are quite different. As long as the Python code confines
itself to a functional style, then translating to Lisp shouldn't be hard.
But rewriting Python classes in CLOS would not be a simple translation.
.O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com
..O | sterling at camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com
OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20110914/0699ea10/attachment.pgp
More information about the freebsd-questions