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 | sterl...@camdensoftware.com | http://chipsquips.com
OOO | 2048R/D6DBAF91              | http://chipstips.com

Attachment: pgp7AjTEYCdjH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to