Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Andrew Dalke]

Pascal Bourguignon:
> Some differences in  this table look suspect to  me.  Perhaps they did
> not  take into account  other important  factors, such  as the  use of
> libraries.

Anyone here know more about the original reference?

> For  example, when  I write  awk code,  I really  don't feel  like I'm
> programming  in a  higher level  languange than  LISP... (and  I won't
> mention perl).

The specific definition of "higher level language" is the number
of assembly instructions replaced.  Eg, spreadsheets are in that
table despite not being a good general purpose programming
language.

I also suspect the numbers were taken from the analysis
of existing programs, and people would have used awk
for cases where it was appropriate.

> Also, the ordering of Fortran  vs. C fell strange (given the libraries
> I use in C and the fact that I don't use Fortran).

Hmm... You don't do scientific programming, do you.  ;)

                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com