Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!news.stack.nl!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.002 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'example:': 0.03; 'patterns': 0.04; 'interpreter': 0.05; 'subject:Python': 0.06; 'assignment': 0.07; 'subject:would': 0.07; '(aka': 0.09; 'mind,': 0.09; 'oop': 0.09; 'oop,': 0.09; 'sure,': 0.09; 'thats': 0.09; 'url:blog': 0.10; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.11; 'python': 0.11; 'jan': 0.12; 'language,': 0.12; 'wrote': 0.14; '(actually': 0.16; 'exceptions,': 0.16; 'modules,': 0.16; 'subject: \n ': 0.16; 'types,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.18; 'passing': 0.19; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.22; 'skip:l 30': 0.24; 'looks': 0.24; 'cc:2**0': 0.24; 'post': 0.26; 'least': 0.26; 'subject:/': 0.26; 'gets': 0.27; 'header:In-Reply-To:1': 0.27; 'rest': 0.29; 'chris': 0.29; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.30; 'easier': 0.31; "skip:' 10": 0.31; 'languages': 0.32; 'fri,': 0.33; 'implemented': 0.33; 'etc': 0.35; 'but': 0.35; 'received:google.com': 0.35; 'scheme': 0.36; 'subject:?': 0.36; 'url:org': 0.36; 'implement': 0.38; 'pm,': 0.38; 'functional': 0.39; 'though,': 0.39; 'how': 0.40; 'even': 0.60; 'catch': 0.60; 'break': 0.61; 'simply': 0.61; 'simple': 0.61; 'such': 0.63; 'become': 0.64; 'to:addr:gmail.com': 0.65; 'dont': 0.67; 'url:pdf': 0.68; 'paper': 0.75; 'doable': 0.84; 'subject: *': 0.84; 'tricky': 0.84; 'url:2013': 0.84; 'weaker': 0.84; 'dozen': 0.91; 'greedy': 0.91; 'url:people': 0.93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=m2yZ+hL3t7O8AwyVXNQHDA8xNO9T236sZG/2oevDgII=; b=c+ksPFt0Uu0veWXg1XOzB8V9KMeNyNgFqc7EG87MBcENyJpR2ZrzsDGvLmefazFGpi FcedCxJoY66Ump/rq60UdaCnHYQkFmN4N8rXB7oIRvZ1jeoHzH7NGi3uFD4Ik6MPWrzb m9/YHf1ZcevQt+7vHDGzUPP+zZkHT9+uawnfbyvzXeShgGjLe2BxCEgDF4p5njCkShFr EUyfOD6umm31Q81C65ECq03NHwn7GGS70Y+Kgqa4rfphSJBVvCu57qdmFDsZvXpvfTTb PbnlgAPv91Npmb8VcBnw6GNK7v9HKpunJUS81pP1na9XpeJr0tavHhpEMZ3PmSrjo5DJ YUCg== X-Received: by 10.66.231.6 with SMTP id tc6mr97621963pac.68.1388770440620; Fri, 03 Jan 2014 09:34:00 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <374d1574-94f8-4817-8406-23d6f38fc740@googlegroups.com> References: <374d1574-94f8-4817-8406-23d6f38fc740@googlegroups.com> From: Rustom Mody Date: Fri, 3 Jan 2014 23:03:40 +0530 Subject: Re: Is Python really "Lisp without parentheses"? So would it be easy to *implement* a lot of Python in Scheme/Lisp? To: Chris Seberino Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "python-list@python.org" X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 39 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1388770450 news.xs4all.nl 2902 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:33237 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:63078 On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Chris Seberino 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 see= m doable and very instructive for students.....they would thereafter, for a= ll 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