Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Pascal Costanza]

Andrew Dalke wrote:

> Pascal Costanza:
> 
>>Yes, scripting languages have caught up in this regard. (However, note
>>that Common Lisp also includes a full compiler at runtime.)
> 
> 
> However, that's an implementation difference -- the only thing
> users should see is that the code runs faster.  It doesn't otherwise
> provide new functionality.

No, not quite. You can actually control whether you want a piece of 
dynamically generated code interpreted or compiled. If such generated 
code isn't run too often (for example only once) then the overhead of 
compiling it most probably doesn't pay off but rather can be higher than 
when the code is just interpreted.

Furthermore note that this is not an implementation difference. The ANSI 
standard defines the function COMPILE.

>>Pick your choice. "There is not only one way to do it." (tm)
> 
> 
> Perl beat you to it -- "TMTOWTDO" (There's more than one way to
> do it.).   ;)
> 
> Python's reply "There should be one-- and preferably only one --
> obvious way to do it."

I simply don't believe that this will work out in the long run. Not in a 
truly general-purpose language.


Pascal