Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Carlo v. Dango]

> I'd humbly suggest that if you can't see *any* reason why someone
> would prefer Lisp's syntax, then you're not missing some fact about
> the syntax itself but about how other language features are supported
> by the syntax.

sure, but it seems like noone was able to let CLOS have
(virtual) inner classes,
methods inside methods,
virtual methods (yeah I know about those stupid generic functions :),
method overloading,
A decent API (I tried playing with it.. it doesn't even have a freaking 
date library as standard ;-p

Yes I agree with the compile time macro expansion is a nice thing. 
However, if I want to do some serious changes to the structure of objects 
and classes (i.e. create a new kind of objects) then I have to spend a 
long time finding out how the CLOS people hacked together their 
representation of classes, methods, method call etc... it has been far 
easier for me to just do some small changes using __getattribute__ and 
metaclasses in python. So in that respect Im not really sure the macro 
idea is advantageous for other than 'straight away' macros...

yes this mail is provocative.. please count slowly to 10 before replying 
if you disagree with my point of view (and I know Pascal will disagree ;-) 
... not that I ever seen him angry ;-)


Carlo van Dango

-- 
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/