"Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > Python has to rely more on using the right algorithm... >> >> This sound familiar: "Macros are dangerous!" > Yes. I changed my opinion on advocating Python having macros in one > of our long threads on the subject. Maintainance counts.
Yes, it does, but that should take you to exactly the opposite conclusion. >> "Compilers make you lazy." > This is new to me. In fact, for the compiled languages available to me. > Using them *first* would be the difficult choice. These are not real sentences, but if you're saying that compiled languages make programming more difficult, then you're simply using the wrong compiled languages. Lisp is a dynamic language that also supports compilation to native code. > Unlike Lisp, Python does not have a ubiquitous compiler. It is > therefore > made to interface nicely with compiled languages. Other compiled What on earth does this mean? You're saying that because Python doesn't have a compiler, it can interface more easily to compiled languages? That's nonsense. Further, most Lisp implementations support an interface to C that doesn't require you to write and compile C code in order to use C extensions in Lisp. Can Python do the same more "nicely" than Lisp? > language users see the need for dynamic interpreted languages like > Python and maintain links Python such as the Boost Python C++ > wrapper. IronPython for .NET, Jython for Java. > Lisp is its own interpreter and compiler, which should be a great > advantage, but only if you don't make the mistake of ignoring the > wealth of code out there that is written in other languages. Um. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
