paul at prescod.net
Thu Jul 8 08:32:00 CEST 2004
Peter Hickman wrote:
> They never seemed to indicate that their architecture was anything
> special or that their competitors' was especially bad. Just that they
> could develop good code faster than their competitors.
Elsewhere they do claim architectural advantage:
"One way we used macros was to generate Html. There is a very
natural fit between macros and Html, because Html is a prefix
notation like Lisp, and Html is recursive like Lisp. So we had
macro calls within macro calls, generating the most complicated
Html, and it was all still very manageable."
"Users could write their own Rtml templates to describe what they
wanted their pages to look like. We had a structure editor for
manipulating these templates, a lot like the structure editor they
had in Interlisp. Instead of typing free-form text, you cut and
pasted bits of code together. This meant that it was impossible
to get syntax errors. It also meant that we didn't have to display
the parentheses in the underlying s-expressions: we could show
structure by indentation. By this means we made the language look
a lot less threatening."
"We could write the code to say, if the user clicks
on this link, go to the color selection page, and then come back
here. This was just one of the places were we took advantage of
this possibility. It made our software visibly more sophisticated
than that of our competitors."
More information about the Python-list