Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Marco Antoniotti]

Rainer Deyke wrote:
> Pascal Costanza wrote:
> 
>>Pick the one Common Lisp implementation that provides the stuff you
>>need. If no Common Lisp implementation provides all the stuff you
>>need, write your own libraries or pick a different language. It's as
>>simple as that.
> 
> 
> Coming from a C/C++ background, I'm surprised by this attitude.  Is
> portability of code across different language implementations not a priority
> for LISP programmers?
> 

It is.  However, history has run against Lisp in this respect.  First of 
all, there are more than 1.84 implementations of Lisp (4 commercial 
ones) and the vendors do not have much incentive in making something 
completely portable.  OTOH *there are* cross platforms compatibility 
layers for many of the things you need.  But the problem facing any 
Common Lisp library writer is to decide how much to go in terms of cross 
  implementation and cross platform portability.

Having said that, lets note however, that the actual footprint of CL is 
large enough to allow you to write nice portable programs in a much 
easier way than e.g. in Scheme or in pre- (and, to some extent post-) 
STL C++.

Cheers
--
Marco