Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Thomas F. Burdick]

"Carlo v. Dango" <oest at soetu.eu> writes:

> > I'd humbly suggest that if you can't see *any* reason why someone
> > would prefer Lisp's syntax, then you're not missing some fact about
> > the syntax itself but about how other language features are supported
> > by the syntax.
> 
> sure, but it seems like noone was able to let CLOS have
> (virtual) inner classes,

This is kind of like saying we weren't able to have setjmp/longjmp;
yeah, but doing so makes no sense.

> methods inside methods,

There was a proposal to add lexically-scoped methods, but it got
tossed because no one liked it.

> virtual methods (yeah I know about those stupid generic functions :),

As has been already stated, we only have "virtual methods".

> method overloading,

How could you have both noncongruent argument lists, and multiple
dispatch?  With an either/or like that, Lisp chose the right one.

> A decent API (I tried playing with it.. it doesn't even have a freaking 
> date library as standard ;-p

Who does?  Have all that stuff standard, I mean.  Python doesn't even
have a standard.  We have some date support in ANSI --  get the rest from your
vendor (commercial or free).

> yes this mail is provocative..

Seems more ignorant, to me.  I guess when you're conversing on an
archived forum, that can seem like the same thing, though.

-- 
           /|_     .-----------------------.                        
         ,'  .\  / | No to Imperialist war |                        
     ,--'    _,'   | Wage class war!       |                        
    /       /      `-----------------------'                        
   (   -.  |                               
   |     ) |                               
  (`-.  '--.)                              
   `. )----'