On Jun 20, 9:31 pm, Richard Fateman <fate...@cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: > Define Macro wrote: > > On Jun 13, 7:07 pm, bolega <gnuist...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am trying to compare LISP/Scheme/Python for their expressiveness. > > >> For this, I propose a vanilla C interpreter. I have seen a book which > >> writes C interpreter in C. > > >> The criteria would be the small size and high readability of the code. > > >> Are there already answers anywhere ? > > Sure. Lots of texts on compilers provide exercises which, in one way or > another suggest how to write an interpreter and perhaps a compiler too > for some language. Anyone taking a course on compilers is likely to > have followed such exercises in order to pass the course. Some > instructors are enlightened enough to allow students to pick the > implementation language. > > Ask any such instructor.
Beware, he does not tell the readers the financial details. This is what he wrote to me by email. <quote> I would be willing to meet with you here in Berkeley to educate you on these matters at a consulting rate of $850 per hour, with a minimum of 8 hours. RJF </quote> > I think you will find that many people use a packaged parser-generator > which eliminates much of the choice-of-language difference. Do you like > Bison, Yacc, Antlr, or one of the many parser generators in Lisp, > python, etc. > > My own experience is that in comparing Lisp to C, students end up with > smaller and better interpreters and compilers, faster. I don't know > about python vs C for sure, but I suspect python wins. As for > python vs Lisp, I don't know. > > RJF -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
