lisp scheme lush python etc.

[Mike Clarkson]

On 12 Nov 2002 07:54:01 -0800, aaron at reportlab.com (Aaron Watters)
wrote:

>I abandoned Lisps and scheme for Python about a decade ago
>(with misgivings) primarily because
>   0) portability and stability
>   1) libraries and portable extension framework
>   2) it's friendly to other software 
>      (from above and below and anywhere else)
>   3) the syntax doesn't stink 
>      (but if it was done over I'd add brackets)
>   4) it's easy enough for noneggheads
>   5) Everything I liked to do that was easy
>      in Lisps was also easy (and clearer too) in
>      Python. (ymmv)
>It seems to me that most similar languages still
>fail on at least one of the above.  (1,3,5) are very
>much judgement calls, of course.
>
>The major thing that is missing, of course is some sort of
>(optional, inferred) type checking.  I'm also getting
>nervous about bloat...

What would be really interesting would be a Lython -a Python written
in Common Lisp, like Jython is written in Java. I think Lisp would be
as good a language as Java for writing an intepreter, and there might
be good performance from Lython given the very good native code
compilers that are available for Lisp.

It would give Lisp another lease on life, would prove the portability
of Python again, and would expose the Python community to some
of the first class type inferencing and optimizations made by Lisp
compilers (for example the compiler called 'Python' in CMU Lisp).

Mike.