From: Tom Metro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:35:26 -0400
Bob Rogers wrote: > I was once told (by a fellow Lisp refugee) that Python is the > favorite "new" language of Lisp programmers because it has similar > semantics. Sure, Paul Graham compares Python to Lisp in several of his essays. http://paulgraham.com/icad.html . . . In another essay he addresses my original question: http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html (More on "Python's readability" in: http://www.paulgraham.com/power.html ) Thank you for reacquainting me with these; I had almost forgotten about them. It also reminds me that your original post: From: Tom Metro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:01:39 -0400 . . . Guido made comparisons to Perl only in two areas - saying he likes generators and iterators better than continuations . . . made me think of a paper [1] I only stumbled on recently (despite it being 13 years old!) on the semantic weaknesses of iterators. I found it while researching coroutines; I can think of no more compelling demonstration of the power of continuations than the fact that they make coroutines trivial to implement [2]. As I joked in the prior message I still think the right way to address this problem is by adding a language pragma, just like "use strict," that enforces greater conformity. Just as many Perl shops mandate use of "use strict" they could mandate use of "use Enterprise" or whatever its called. Or maybe Perl::Critic [3] ? -- Bob [1] Henry G. Baker, "Iterators: Signs of Weakness in Object-Oriented Languages", ACM OOPS Messenger, July 1993. http://home.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/Iterator.html [2] http://svn.perl.org/viewcvs/parrot/trunk/runtime/parrot/library/Parrot/Coroutine.pir?view=markup [3] http://search.cpan.org/~thaljef/Perl-Critic-0.2/lib/Perl/Critic.pm _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
