Lisp development with macros faster than Python development?..

[jayessay]

"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:

> "jayessay" <nospam at foo.com> wrote in message 
> news:m3r7ebvomy.fsf at rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > 1. Someone recently remarked that good Lisp macros are basically
> >   executable pseudo code.  I think that is pretty much exactly right
> >   and is a pretty good "sound bite" distillation of what it is all
> >   about.
> 
> Several years ago  I remarked that Python reads like executable pseudocode. 
> I still think that that is pretty much right.
> 
> Googling, I discovered that the creators of some thing I had never heard of 
> said the same thing about *their* language a couple of years ago.  I wish 
> web pages, like newgroup posts, were dated so one could better trace the 
> history of such usages.

In the context discussed, the idea was the pseudo code was a _direct_
match to the description of the task in the _domain_.  If your domain
is "algorithms" or some such, then I would agree Python would work as
a reasonably decent pseudo language, otherwise no.  It's too low
level.  Same with base CL.  It's too low level.

/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com