Quoth Michel Talon on Wednesday, 14 September 2011: > Chad wrote: > > > 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, > > 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. >
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. -- .O. | Sterling (Chip) Camden | http://camdensoftware.com ..O | [email protected] | http://chipsquips.com OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91 | http://chipstips.com
pgp7AjTEYCdjH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
