From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 14 14:49:23 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC0F1065687 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:49:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sterling@camdensoftware.com) Received: from wh1.interactivevillages.com (ca.2e.7bae.static.theplanet.com [174.123.46.202]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCCC98FC16 for ; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:49:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from 184-78-197-203.war.clearwire-wmx.net ([184.78.197.203] helo=_HOSTNAME_) by wh1.interactivevillages.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1R3qm7-00086i-B2 for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:48:56 -0700 Received: by _HOSTNAME_ (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:49:17 -0700 Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:49:17 -0700 From: Chip Camden To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Message-ID: <20110914144916.GB67869@libertas.local.camdensoftware.com> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <20110914090245.GA65375@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110914090245.GA65375@lpthe.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Company: Camden Software Consulting URL: http://camdensoftware.com X-PGP-Key: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=0xD6DBAF91 X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - wh1.interactivevillages.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - freebsd.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - camdensoftware.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: Subject: Re: *caution* severely OT!! X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:49:23 -0000 --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quoth Michel Talon on Wednesday, 14 September 2011: > Chad wrote: >=20 > > I really don't think I'd say that Common Lisp is "syntactically very > > close to python [sic]". It's not fair to either Common Lisp or Python, >=20 > On the contrary python is strikingly similar to a simplified version of > lisp without parentesis. It is not an original opinion by far, see the > following post of an eminent lisp hacker: > http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html > Of course lisp is considerably more complex if you begin to use more > exotic features, but if you confine yourself to translating python code, > it may be almost litteral translation, as explained in the link above. >=20 The OO systems are quite different. As long as the Python code confines itself to a functional style, then translating to Lisp shouldn't be hard. But rewriting Python classes in CLOS would not be a simple translation. --=20 =2EO. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com =2E.O | sterling@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (FreeBSD) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJOcL7sAAoJEIpckszW26+RQXwH/iXJ5qARy+qj+Pvo3WDI+vCj z1H3eKqNSHIcm2SO32BjVAGv5Fh3JJ5axQgxfLXjo2GRK5p1ao5ZF+TAeO4vhTKJ 4cfWJa4AmT/lEVp1EaZXJaZvKW6XXle5EEmS8C1jwK9zFrpWS/yLM0VeDDEAs/SB ZCezHYtE0IKuCq0M5qJfmH3YdhRJ7gx8kvqH0a5kUX79RY0z48Dql0jY8XF6HU4X 6MZOcg+oqyadvmMamQzceUd6XTXwJ4WQk6LcV4mCVpQWhm29+PodAwZI5VaQXLLR 51LPqkVor7w+GejCYSxaFa6RVbfCUp1dJu6UzumSt9FatOJBVvpUXBukvbNuwfs= =qJDK -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --xgyAXRrhYN0wYx8y--