Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[james anderson]

"Carlo v. Dango" wrote:
> 
> > 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,
> methods inside methods,
> virtual methods (yeah I know about those stupid generic functions :),
> method overloading,
> A decent API (I tried playing with it.. it doesn't even have a freaking
> date library as standard ;-p
> 
> Yes I agree with the compile time macro expansion is a nice thing.
> However, if I want to do some serious changes to the structure of objects
> and classes (i.e. create a new kind of objects) then I have to spend a
> long time finding out how the CLOS people hacked together their
> representation of classes, methods, method call etc... it has been far
> easier for me to just do some small changes using __getattribute__ and
> metaclasses in python. So in that respect Im not really sure the macro
> idea is advantageous for other than 'straight away' macros...
> 
> yes this mail is provocative.. please count slowly to 10 before replying
> if you disagree with my point of view (and I know Pascal will disagree ;-)
> ... not that I ever seen him angry ;-)

one might benefit more from reasoned examples, comparisons, and questions than
from vacuous vitriol.

...