Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Alex Martelli]

Rainer Deyke wrote:

> Pascal Costanza wrote:
>> Pick the one Common Lisp implementation that provides the stuff you
>> need. If no Common Lisp implementation provides all the stuff you
>> need, write your own libraries or pick a different language. It's as
>> simple as that.
> 
> Coming from a C/C++ background, I'm surprised by this attitude.  Is
> portability of code across different language implementations not a
> priority for LISP programmers?

Libraries distributed as binaries are not portable across different C++
implementations on the same machine (as a rule).  If we're talking
about sources, I don't see why strict ANSI Lisp library source code should
be any less portable than strict ISO C++ library source code.  Even
different C++ implementations often come with additional vendor
specific libraries (e.g., on Windows, MFC and ATL for MS, ...) -- you
don't HAVE to use them, though the vendor's tools encourage you
to (to hook you in).

Personally, the only thing I find alien in Pascal's recommendation is
a glaring lack -- no mention of the possibility of downloading and
reusing open-source libraries from the net, just getting them as a
part of the implementation or else rolling your own.  Now _that_ is
something I find weird, and cannot explain.


Alex