Comparing Lisp to Python, what you consider more important: speed or macros.
in [Lisp]
|
Prev: Comparing Lisp to Python, what you consider more important:speed or macros.
Next: Comparing Lisp to Python, what you consider more important: speed or macros.
From: grucidipo on 28 Apr 2010 17:44 On 28 abr, 23:23, Tim Bradshaw <t...(a)tfeb.org> wrote: > On 2010-04-28 21:08:44 +0100, grucidipo said: > > > i don't think there is any difficulty writing the code. > > Then just use COBOL, it runs everywhere. Problem solved! Here is another mention of COBOL in a Lisp context: William James De: "William James" <w_a_x_...(a)yahoo.com> Fecha: 1 Mar 2009 12:38:40 GMT Local: Dom 1 mar 2009 14:38 Asunto: Re: please review my code david wrote: > (defun get-four-unique-random-numbers () > (loop > :with results = '() > :for alea = (random 64) > :while (< (length results) 4) > :do (pushnew alea results) > :finally (return results))) Do you pride yourself on your verbosity? On your pompous, pretentious prolixity? Do you aspire to be a politician? Then you have surely picked the right language: COBOL LISP! Congratulations! Clojure: ... I don't have anything against COBOL, it can be a good language when used in an appropriate context. Perhaps I should have been watching Barcelona-... but I don't like football.
From: fortunatus on 28 Apr 2010 17:54 On Apr 28, 5:21 pm, grucidipo <gruzci...(a)yahoo.es> wrote: > I agree, macros are a big win, but the problem I see is that they are > not easy to standardise, you can construct a new language with macros > and for others reading your code can be difficult.- Hide quoted text - What "standardize"? You load a library, you use it's functions and macros - why should there be any greater need to "standardize" macros than functions? For readers not familiar with some library, the functions are just as mysterious as the macros... The easy cases are obvious, the hard cases need some decent documentation.
From: Nick Keighley on 29 Apr 2010 10:06 On 28 Apr, 20:27, grucidipo <gruzci...(a)yahoo.es> wrote: > I find easier to program in Python than in Lisp, but Lisp has Macros > and it can optimise for speed. > > Here are some subjective numbers: > > Easy to program & Standard Library & Speed & Macros > or similar > > Python: 0,8 0,8 0,5 0.4 > Lisp : 0,5 0,5 0,8 0,8 > > I would like to know what weight other Lisper give to theses > factors. I know that it depend of what type of application you are > developing, but I am curious what other think about this. why did Python score 0.4 for macros? Does python have some sort of macro facility?
From: grucidipo on 29 Apr 2010 14:44 On 29 abr, 16:06, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 28 Apr, 20:27, grucidipo <gruzci...(a)yahoo.es> wrote: > > > I find easier to program in Python than in Lisp, but Lisp has Macros > > and it can optimise for speed. > > > Here are some subjective numbers: > > > Easy to program & Standard Library & Speed & Macros > > or similar > > > Python: 0,8 0,8 0,5 0.4 > > Lisp : 0,5 0,5 0,8 0,8 > > > I would like to know what weight other Lisper give to theses > > factors. I know that it depend of what type of application you are > > developing, but I am curious what other think about this. > > why did Python score 0.4 for macros? Does python have some sort of > macro facility? Python has eval, so you could construct a macro using strings and eval. There is not standard library for macros in Python, but I think using eval is a good tool to build a library for using macros. The point is that people using Python don't think macros are useful for them, so I don't know any library for making macros with python. I score 0.4 for macros because I think 1) it can be done, 2) in the usual work with python I don't miss macros. Nick, thanks for being a real Kind.
From: grucidipo on 29 Apr 2010 14:50
On 29 abr, 10:41, Jeff Clough <j...(a)chaosphere.com> wrote: > grucidipo <gruzci...(a)yahoo.es> writes: > > I find easier to program in Python than in Lisp, but Lisp has Macros > > and it can optimise for speed. > > > Here are some subjective numbers: > > > Easy to program & Standard Library & Speed & Macros > > or similar > > > Python: 0,8 0,8 0,5 0.4 > > Lisp : 0,5 0,5 0,8 0,8 > > > I would like to know what weight other Lisper give to theses > > factors. I know that it depend of what type of application you are > > developing, but I am curious what other think about this. > > Python lost me when I saw that whitespace was used for scoping. It's a > small thing for most, I'm sure, but *I* find it hideous. > > Jeff Jeff what you say about whitespace is analogous of what python people say about parenthesis! Thanks for being a polite man, a gentleman, that is a real value nowadays. |