Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?
Dennis Lee Bieber
wlfraed at ix.netcom.com
Thu Nov 21 21:30:52 EST 2002
Courageous fed this fish to the penguins on Wednesday 20 November 2002
11:38 pm:
>
> A number of "standard constructs" used routinely in LISP are actually
> macros in some standard distributions, such as Franz. One of the
> genuinely useful capabilities of LISP is the ability to define domain-
> specific languages. Although certain negatives do apply, of course.
>
Which, I'll concede, may be useful /if/
1) the extensions are for personal use only, and no one else will
/ever/ have to maintain the code
/or/
2) the extensions are defined by one person at the beginning of the
effort, documented as such, and the other programmers on the effort, or
in maintenance later, are NOT permitted to add their own favorite
constructs.
In the environment I come from, just getting used to differences (for
silly example) between coders using:
if (cond) {
....
} else {
....
}
vs
if (cond)
{
....
}
else
{
....
}
vs
if (cond)
{
....
}
else
{
....
}
and
#define THEN {
#define ELSE } else {
#define END }
if (cond) THEN
....
ELSE
....
END
is bad enough -- at least all of those follow the same /syntax/ of
<block start> .... <block end>
If you add the ability to change the language syntax, you no longer
/have/ the same language. You need to train all maintenance programmers
in the changes... and then they have to train others in /their/
changes, etc.
[no doubt my last 20 years for a defense contractor glare out]
[anyone need a software engineer JOAT? Lay-off was September]
--
> ============================================================== <
> wlfraed at ix.netcom.com | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG <
> wulfraed at dm.net | Bestiaria Support Staff <
> ============================================================== <
> Bestiaria Home Page: http://www.beastie.dm.net/ <
> Home Page: http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/ <
More information about the Python-list
mailing list