Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Kenny Tilton]

Andrew Dalke wrote:
> I'll agree with that.  So why should Lisp, designed in the 1950s,
> provide the best set of features (and I include more than semantic
> abilities) for situations unenvisioned half a centry later (eg, the concept
> of a "non-professional programmer")?

Macros. :)

In On Lisp (the reason I am breaking my vow of silence on this thread) 
Paul Graham shows how things like objects and prolog can be built out of 
standard ANSI Lisp (without using the built-in CLOS, of course):

    http://www.paulgraham.com/onlisp.html

And the synatx looks nice (important feature, right?) because of macros.

I am kicking myself for not simply referring everyone to Mr. Graham when 
this thread (and its prior incarnation on clp alone) started. Graham 
says it all, and says it better than I ever could.

That link includes a download of the whole book. Chapter 8 is called 
"When to Use Macros".

Chapter 1 answers your quoted question above; it is called "The 
Extensible Language". It includes discussion of why that is a Good 
Thing, and not to be dreaded because of the concerns Alex (and other 
Pythonistas have) over extending a language.


-- 
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
  http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey