15 ms·

I'm no expert (merely a user of these systems) but it seems to me that the Python runtime is a POS compared to what you find in some Common Lisps like SBCL. Th

by mdakin 19y ago

I'm no expert (merely a user of these systems) but it seems to me that the Python runtime is a POS compared to what you find in some Common Lisps like SBCL. The really appealing approach to me would be to pull Python into the Lisp environment rather than the other way around. Python's lib is so nice, coherent and complete but Lisp is nicer to program and the tools seem much more mature.

omouse 19y ago
I'd prefer a Scheme implementation (or two) getting better libraries than Common Lisp. Check out Bigloo Scheme...it compiles down to C, JVM and .NET bytecode. I've only had it compile down to C but it was really quick. I'll have to get the computer language shootout guys to add Bigloo to their benchmarks.
- mdakin 19y ago
  My first Lisp experience was SICP/Scheme and it always felt cleaner and nicer as a language compared to CL. I gravitated towards CL over time due to perceived runtime and library advantages. If any Lisp could pull it all together like Python has I'd jump on board though. And if it was a Scheme then all the better.
  - michaelneale 19y ago
    I agree. CL carries a lot of weight behind it, that is all legacy that really isn't going anywhere. Scheme has always stayed deliberately less "practical" but I think that means it will last longer.
AF 19y ago
You are right about the runtimes. SBCL is something else. And there have been attempts to pull Python into Lisp: http://common-lisp.net/project/python-on-lisp/ http://common-lisp.net/project/python-on-lisp/ The only thing is, I find CL a really baroque language. The issues have been touched upon by many, but CL just has many spots where due to being standardized 2 decades ago, it isn't really consistent. Python for the most part is extremely consistent and the VM runs on any major OS (SBCL still has issues on Windows). Not to mention the language seems to be evolving naturally (Python 3). That's the main reason I'd like to see a Lisp on Python.
- mdakin 19y ago
  Understood, and I agree about Python's consistency and coherent evolution relative to CL. Thanks for the link.

by mdakin 19y ago

omouse 19y ago

I'd prefer a Scheme implementation (or two) getting better libraries than Common Lisp. Check out Bigloo Scheme...it compiles down to C, JVM and .NET bytecode. I've only had it compile down to C but it was really quick. I'll have to get the computer language shootout guys to add Bigloo to their benchmarks.

mdakin 19y ago
My first Lisp experience was SICP/Scheme and it always felt cleaner and nicer as a language compared to CL. I gravitated towards CL over time due to perceived runtime and library advantages. If any Lisp could pull it all together like Python has I'd jump on board though. And if it was a Scheme then all the better.
- michaelneale 19y ago
  I agree. CL carries a lot of weight behind it, that is all legacy that really isn't going anywhere. Scheme has always stayed deliberately less "practical" but I think that means it will last longer.

AF 19y ago

You are right about the runtimes. SBCL is something else. And there have been attempts to pull Python into Lisp: http://common-lisp.net/project/python-on-lisp/ http://common-lisp.net/project/python-on-lisp/ The only thing is, I find CL a really baroque language. The issues have been touched upon by many, but CL just has many spots where due to being standardized 2 decades ago, it isn't really consistent. Python for the most part is extremely consistent and the VM runs on any major OS (SBCL still has issues on Windows). Not to mention the language seems to be evolving naturally (Python 3). That's the main reason I'd like to see a Lisp on Python.

mdakin 19y ago
Understood, and I agree about Python's consistency and coherent evolution relative to CL. Thanks for the link.