Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Pascal Bourguignon]

"Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:
> > It's
> > just a reaction to Python (a perfectly nice little scripting language)
> > trying to morph into a language with the sophistication of Lisp.
> 
> Python isn't doing that.  It's lives in a perfectly good niche wherein
> Lisp is not the most appropriate language.  At least not until there's a
> macro which works like
> 
> (#python '
> for i in range(100):
>   print "Spam, ",
> print
> )

This is trivial:

(DEFUN SPLIT-ARGUMENTS (STRING)
  (DO ((CHUNKS '()) (START 0) (POS 0))
      ((<= (LENGTH STRING) POS)
       (PROGN (WHEN (< START POS) (PUSH (SUBSEQ STRING START POS) CHUNKS))
              (NREVERSE CHUNKS)))
    (IF (CHAR= (CHAR STRING POS) (CHARACTER " "))
      (PROGN (WHEN (< START POS) (PUSH (SUBSEQ STRING START POS) CHUNKS))
             (INCF POS) (SETQ START POS))
      (INCF POS)))
  );;SPLIT-ARGUMENTS


(SET-DISPATCH-MACRO-CHARACTER
 (CHARACTER "#") (CHARACTER "!")
 (LAMBDA (STREAM CHAR ARG)
   (DECLARE (IGNORE CHAR ARG))
   ;; first read the interpreter path and arguments.
   ;; next read the script up to a line beginning with "!#".
   ;; then generate statements to the interpreter and feed it the script.
   (DO ((INTERPRETER (SPLIT-ARGUMENTS (READ-LINE STREAM NIL NIL T)))
        (SCRIPT '())
        (LINE (READ-LINE STREAM NIL NIL T)
              (READ-LINE STREAM NIL NIL T)))
       ((AND (<= 2 (LENGTH LINE)) (STRING= "!#" LINE :END2 2))
        `(LET ((INTERP-INPUT (EXT:RUN-PROGRAM ,(CAR INTERPRETER)
                               :ARGUMENTS ',(CDR INTERPRETER)
                               :INPUT :STREAM :OUTPUT :TERMINAL)))
           ;; Sorry, clisp specific. Please replace ext:run-program by
           ;; your favorite hook.
           (DOLIST (LINE ',(NREVERSE SCRIPT))
             (FORMAT INTERP-INPUT "~A~%" LINE))
           (CLOSE INTERP-INPUT)))
     (PUSH LINE SCRIPT))))



[27]> #!/usr/bin/python
for i in range(100):
  print "Spam, ",
print ""
!#


T
[28]> Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  Spam,  


Therefore Python lives  in a perfectly good niche  wherein Lisp IS the
most appropriate language. QED you can forget Python.



And  of course,  while  trivial  when implemented  in  Lisp, it's  so
powerfull it's not limited to python:

[29]> #!/bin/bash
ls -m *.lisp
!#

T
[31]> ai.lisp, antispam-test.lisp, antispam.lisp, ascii.lisp, basic.lisp, 
benford.lisp, bits-old.lisp, bits.lisp, bottle.lisp, brent.lisp, c-order.lisp, 
clos-test.lisp, clx-sample.lisp, clx-tutorial.lisp, compare-lts.lisp, 
copy-over.lisp, dbc.lisp, ddj-combin.lisp, dec.lisp, def-if-undef.lisp, 
defstrmacro.lisp, deriv.lisp, diagram.lisp, directory-and-pathname.lisp, 
dot.clisprc.lisp, douze.lisp, exemple-cloture.lisp, expert.lisp, fast-io.lisp, 
fibonacci.lisp, fixed-point.lisp, four.lisp, html.lisp, ib.lisp, ig.lisp, 
inferior-lisp.lisp, integ.lisp, lecture-au-vol.lisp, lisp1-in-cl.lisp, 
livre-qui-rend-fou.lisp, lpt-bug.clisprc.lisp, marienbad.lisp, num.lisp, 
old-marienbad.lisp, packages.lisp, pg-psql.lisp, pg.lisp, pi.lisp, 
picture-test.lisp, posix-dirent.lisp, protocoles.lisp, pttp-1i.lisp, 
python.lisp, quine.lisp, scratch.lisp, sdraw.lisp, sum.lisp, symbol.lisp, 
test-format.lisp, test-special.lisp, test.lisp, text.lisp, tree.lisp, 
turing.lisp, wang.lisp, word-count.lisp



Personnaly, I prefer to write, consistently:
    
    (dotimes (i 100)
       (format t "Spam, ")) 
    (format t "~%")


That is, consistently with the rest of my programs.

The question being whether it's better to be needing several different
languages to solve a set of problems because none of them languages is
powerful  enough, or  if it's  better to  have one  good  and powerful
language that helps you solve all your problems?

-- 
__Pascal_Bourguignon__
http://www.informatimago.com/
Do not adjust your mind, there is a fault in reality.