Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #63078

Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp?

Show all headers | View raw

On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Chris Seberino <cseberino@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Exceptions, modules, OOP, etc. would be tricky to implement in Scheme but at least the basics like for loops, while loops, assignment etc. would seem doable and very instructive for students.....they would thereafter, for all time, have a mental image of what the Python interpreter is doing.

If thats the intent, sure, scheme is heaven for such
In particular, take a language, break it up into a dozen or so
'little-languages' eg
one for types, one for control structures, one for scoping/parameter
passing etc while 'stubbing out' the rest -- for such scheme is simply
unbeatable.
And this includes IDEAS of oop modules etc.

Its only when you then start demanding: "Why cant this become
realistic?" that things start creaking and groaning at the edges

A simple example:
One of the much touted features of modern functional languages like
Haskell (actually its the SML family) is pattern matching. I
implemented a macro -- destruct -- to do it in scheme -- all of 91
lines!

Now one gets greedy and says: "Hey! Neat! Only small catch is that
haskell patterns looks so much neater than these home-cooked
Lots-of-Irritating-Single-Parenthesis (aka Lisp-y) patterns." And
Wham! The shit begins to hit the ceiling

To my mind, scheme is so powerful that even Abelson and Sussman dont
get how powerful.  I wrote a blog post on that but then diluted the
title :D
http://blog.languager.org/2013/08/applying-si-on-sicp.html

On the whole though, functional languages are distinctly weaker than
lisps but much easier for students.  Heres an old Wadler paper
explaining that:
http://www.cs.kent.ac.uk/people/staff/dat/miranda/wadler87.pdf

Back to comp.lang.python | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

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