other python ideas

[Nonexistence]

"Andrew Dalke" <dalke at acm.org> writes:

> Douglas Alan:

[snipped...]

> > 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.  Its spec is lengthy because it is well thought out, and addressed
most issues that have been discussed so far, and then some.  IMHO, Common
Lisp's package system is no more complex than warranted, given the scope
and complexity of the problem it solved, and it is certainly not too
complicated to use for simpler purposes.

See:
http://www.supelec.fr/docs/cltl/clm/node111.html
http://www.xanalys.com/software_tools/reference/HyperSpec/Body/chap-11.html

> Whereas Python's system is quite easy to explain and works
> just about like everything else namespace related.
> 
> And I must confess to not knowing anything other than the
> most elementary parts of Lisp.  Then again, I can point to
> precisely 1 person in all of computational biology and
> chemistry which use it... which is as many people as I know
> using Prolog or Ruby, and 1/2 the number I know of who have
> used Smalltalk.  I suspect that means something.

Whatever that means, I suspect it's not about the state of Lisp.  Take a
look at http://www.biolisp.org --- there you can find at least five more
people using it:
  The BioLisp.org Steering Committee:
  * Russ Altman, Stanford Biomedical Informatics, Stanford University
  * Larry Hunter, University of Colorado School of Medicine
  * Peter Karp, SRI International
  * Imran Shah, University of Colorado School of Medicine
  * Jeff Shrager, Carnegie Institute of Washington
    (current editor and webmaster)

- huaiyuan