Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Daniel Berlin]

On Oct 9, 2003, at 5:33 PM, Alex Martelli wrote:

> 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?
>
> Libraries distributed as binaries are not portable across different C++
> implementations on the same machine (as a rule).

This isn't true anymore (IE for newer compilers).

Their is now a multi-vendor C++ ABI (it was originally done for 
Itanium, where it *is* the "one true" C++ ABI, and then "ported" to 
other arches, so to speak) that is followed.  For instance, I can take 
G++ 3.3 compiled libraries and link them with Intel C++ compiled files 
(and vice versa).

Mangling, exception handling, etc, is all covered by the ABI.

IBM's XLC 6.0 for OSX also follows this C++ ABI, and is thus compatible 
with G++ 3.x on OSX.

--Dan