Lisp development with macros faster than Python development?..
nospam at foo.com
Thu Jul 7 17:50:41 EDT 2005
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> writes:
> "jayessay" <nospam at foo.com> wrote in message
> news:m3r7ebvomy.fsf at rigel.goldenthreadtech.com...
> > 1. Someone recently remarked that good Lisp macros are basically
> > executable pseudo code. I think that is pretty much exactly right
> > and is a pretty good "sound bite" distillation of what it is all
> > about.
> Several years ago I remarked that Python reads like executable pseudocode.
> I still think that that is pretty much right.
> Googling, I discovered that the creators of some thing I had never heard of
> said the same thing about *their* language a couple of years ago. I wish
> web pages, like newgroup posts, were dated so one could better trace the
> history of such usages.
In the context discussed, the idea was the pseudo code was a _direct_
match to the description of the task in the _domain_. If your domain
is "algorithms" or some such, then I would agree Python would work as
a reasonably decent pseudo language, otherwise no. It's too low
level. Same with base CL. It's too low level.
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
More information about the Python-list