merits of Lisp vs Python

[JShrager at gmail.com]

> greg <greg at cosc.canterbury.ac.nz> writes:
>
> >> A compiler shifts a lot of decisions that an
> >> interpreter would have to make at runtime to compile-time.  There is
> >> no reason a dynamic language can't enjoy this efficiency.
> >
> > I'm not saying that it's impossible to compile
> > Python, only that's there's a lot more to it than
> > just macro expansion. The OP was saying something
> > like "If you added macros, you might get a compiler
> > for free", which is clearly far from true.

Speaking as the OP, let's see what the OP really said:

>... compilers are GREATLY facilitated by having a
> macro facility because (at first blush) all you need to do is to
> macro-expand down to something you know how to turn into code.
> This isn't the only, nor perhaps the best way to get a compiler, but it's
> a step in that direction. Later on you can learn the other great
> features offered by homogeneous syntax, like being able to write code
> walkers, which help improve over the "first blush" compiler....

So, "If you added macros, you might get a compiler for free" is not a
fair paraphrase of this.

(Another way, BTW, that macros improve efficiency is by replacing
function calls with in-line code. Another cheap improvement facilitated
by macros.)