other python ideas

[Douglas Alan]

Nonexistence <huaiyuan at rac1.wam.umd.edu> writes:

> > Douglas Alan:

> > > Unfortunately, the Common Lisp module system is unbearably
> > > complex.

> For most purposes, all you need to know about Common Lisp's module
> (package) system are DEFPACKAGE, IN-PACKAGE, and the ":" "::"
> referencing convention; I can't see how that is more complex than
> what is available in Python.

I've been told by someone who claims to know that a full 50% of bugs
that turned up in a popular CommonLisp implementation were in the
package system.  If that doesn't imply that it is too complex, I don't
know what would.  The module system in Python is very simple by anyone's
standards.

I've also tried on occassion to wade through the Lisp Machine package
system specs.  It is not easy going.

This is not to say that the CommonLisp package system doesn't provide
some great benefits.  It does.  It's just that you pay heavily for
those benefits.  It might be nice to think about if it's possible to
get most of the benefit without as much of the cost.

|>oug