Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #63046
| References | <f51999a3-3302-4a7f-bfdb-756983e72fe3@googlegroups.com> |
|---|---|
| From | Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> |
| Date | 2014-01-03 15:30 +0530 |
| Subject | Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? |
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.python |
| Message-ID | <mailman.4843.1388743262.18130.python-list@python.org> (permalink) |
On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> wrote: > I've heard it said, by no less a guru than Peter Norvig, that Python is a lot like Lisp without the parentheses.... at least for the basics of Python. > > For pedagogical reasons, I'm wondering if it would be easy to implement a big subset of Python in Scheme. > > The basics of Scheme or Lisp are amazingly easy to implement. Because parsing and unparsing (aka printing) are so trivial for s-expressions > Would implementing a subset of Python in a Scheme subset be a clever way > to easily implement a lot of Python? At the innards of lisp and python are garbage collected data structures. Building one with the other gets you that for free [Doing it in a lower level language like C is what invokes the humorous: Greenspuns tenth law] So yes in that one respect what you say is true. But then theres also (apart from parsing) all kinds of semantic differences eg: - exceptions - modules - OOP milarky - C interfacing in Baskin Robbins number of flavours - carefully crafted portable veneer on top of intrinsically non portable OSes All these have to be handled one way or other > > (This isn't for practical reasons....I'm just curious.) A crucial difference between python and lisp is that python is practical and lisp is utopian
Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> - 2014-01-02 22:46 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 15:30 +0530
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 08:50 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Rustom Mody <rustompmody@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 23:03 +0530
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 09:10 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 09:26 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Devin Jeanpierre <jeanpierreda@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 10:32 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> - 2014-01-03 22:48 -0800
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-03 12:26 -0500
Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? Steven D'Aprano <steve+comp.lang.python@pearwood.info> - 2014-01-04 07:38 +1100
csiph-web