Home Original page

merits of Lisp vs Python

André Thieme address.good.until.2006.dec.22 at justmail.de
Sat Dec 9 19:53:50 EST 2006 
Ken Tilton schrieb:
> 
> 
> André Thieme wrote:
>> Ken Tilton schrieb:
>>
>>> The last time we went thru this a Pythonista finally said, Oh, I get 
>>> it. These five lines of code I have to write all the time (two setup, 
>>> one func call, two cleanup) can be collapsed into one or two. The 
>>> thread will be hard to miss in Google groups (two years back?) and 
>>> the epiphany appears right at the end of the thread. <hint>
>>
>>
>> Functional programming is the solution here, not Lisp.
> 
> No, you do not understand. The Pythonista figured it out: a function 
> would not do.

What do you mean?



>> You could make that with a new function (in Python), that takes a
>> function (and its args, don't remember the correct syntax).
>>
>> def foo(function, args):
>>   setup(1)
>>   setup(2)
>>   function(args)
>>   cleanup(1)
>>   cleanup(2)
>>
>>
>> The nice thing in Lisp would now be to save a lambda with the macro.
>> In Python one would fill the name space with throw away functions that
>> get called only one time.
> 
> Omigod. Is that what you meant? You think macros are unnecessary because 
> one could hard-code their expansions as separate functions? And that 
> would constitute hiding the boilerplate? What happens when the 
> boilerplate changes? <game over>

Well, macros are unnecessary from a mathematical point of view: 0 and
1 are enough. But of course they have the potential to be a real time
saver. What I want to say is: the situation you gave as an example is
not the place where macros shine, because 1st class functions can take
over.

You could maybe give another example: how would one realize something
like (memoize function) in Python?
Or (defmethod name :after ..)?


André
--
More information about the Python-list mailing list