Subject: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
From: rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock)
Date: Sat, 09 Dec 2006 06:49:47 -0600
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.python
Message-ID: <yfWdndJ8jol2LefYnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@speakeasy.net>
Steven D'Aprano  <steve@REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
+---------------
| Wolfram Fenske wrote:
| > if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
| > as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
| > the system Common Lisp already provides.  Stuff like this is impossible
| > in other languages.
| 
| Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about
| computer science?
| 
| Anything any language can do is possible in any other language,
| if you are willing to write your own libraries. And debug them.
+---------------

Yes, true, but by then you've effectively reimplemented Lisp!  ;-}

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun's_Tenth_Rule
    Greenspun's Tenth Rule of Programming [...]:
    "Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program
    contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden,
    slow implementation of half of Common Lisp."


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock			<rpw3@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue			<URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403		(650)572-2607