Copy constructors

[Allen Short]

>>>>> "Glyph" == Glyph Lefkowitz <glyph at twistedmatrix.com> writes:

    > On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Guido van Rossum wrote:

    >> Some people like Python for its extreme dynamicism.  But there
    >> are other languages in that niche (like Lisp).

    > Yes.  And many lispers have come to Python because of the
    > similiarities.  Python has a better, more standard, more
    > friendly implementation than most lisps.  If there were a good,
    > free, UNIX-friendly lisp implementation with good support for
    > AIO or microthreads, I would not be using Python right
    > now... except for the fact that it's much _more_ dynamic than
    > lisp.

As one of the aforementioned Lispers that's come to Python, I'd be
rather saddened if it started to go the way of Java. While I'm not
sure I agree that Python is more dynamic than Lisp (it _does_ have
change-class after all =), it _certainly_ has better OS
integration. (not to mention that most of the higher-quality Common
Lisp implementations aren't free...)

Python is the main reason I haven't started working on a new
(un-Common) Lisp. The main thing that attracted me to Python was that
it shared a major characteristic with Lisp -- it trusts the
programmer, as opposed to the Java/Pascal view that the programmer is
a malignant influence on the system and must be prevented from messing
things up too badly. ;) I understand the desire for efficient
execution and agree that the language should be extended to promote it
-- but please, _please_, make these optimisations *optional*, and have
them default to being disabled.

meanwhile-perl6-is-looking-better-all-the-time'ly-yrs,

Allen

-- 
Allen Short             Programmer-Archaeologist             shortwa at auburn.edu
And it should be the law: If you use the word `paradigm' without knowing what
the dictionary says it means, you go to jail.  No exceptions.  -- David Jones