merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

> xscottg at gmail.com writes:
>> I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any
>> reason you couldn't
>> 
>>      (poke destination (peek source))
>
> That breaks the reliability of GC.  I'd say you're no longer writing
> in Lisp if you use something like that.  Writing in this "augmented
> Lisp" can be ok if well-localized and done carefully, but you no
> longer have the guarantees that you get from unaugmented Lisp.  By
> adding one feature you've removed another.

Whatever do you mean?  The portion of memory used for memory-mapped
registers is simply excluded from GC; everything else works as normal.
All modern Lisps (yes, *Common* Lisps) support a foreign-function
interface to talk to C libraries.  Data involved with these kinds of
interface is ignored by the GC, for obvious reasons.  Do you claim
that these implementations are not truly Lisps?

-- 
There are three doors. Behind one is a tiger. Behind another: the
Truth. The third is a closet... choose wisely.

E-mail me at:
  (remove-if (lambda (c) (find c ";:-")) "a;t:k-;n-w at r;p:i-.:e-d:u;")