4 ms·
I would like to consider Python a common lisp alternative. But it's one or two orders of magnitude slower and is not really standardized. I think there is a lot
by justinmeiners 6y ago
I would like to consider Python a common lisp alternative. But it's one or two orders of magnitude slower and is not really standardized. I think there is a lot more that's attractive than just macros.
- elcomet 6y ago> and is not really standardized What do you mean by this ?
- justinmeiners 6y agoMy understanding is the Python standard is essentially whatever C Python chooses to do. They do write the changes to a specification separately, but essentially its one moving implementation, with alternatives that have compatibility limitations.
- schmudde 6y agoIndeed. I'm curious what Python 4 will do to Python 3.
- p_l 6y ago"standard" is "whatever CPython managed to miss a segfault for today". And PyEvalFrameEx is the stuff of nightmares that can't be really fixed because it hardcoded spaghetti that, if rewritten, could subtly break python in myriad ways that would make 2->3 migration a cakewalk. Oh, and there's no real test suite to verify if you didn't break something subtle in implementation. While parsing Ruby code is well known to be problematic, there is a very good reason why Ruby can have interchangeable implementation while Python pretty much can't.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- oalae5niMiel7qu 6y ago...and Python doesn't have it. Image-based programming is the other thing besides macros that gives Lisp an edge. Python might as well be batch-compiled.