Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)
From: jayessay (nospam_at_foo.com)
Date: 03/18/05
- Next message: Darmac: "Re: Emacs + clisp out redirection"
- Previous message: jayessay: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Next in thread: Will Hartung: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Reply: Will Hartung: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 18 Mar 2005 11:59:43 -0500
Ulrich Hobelmann <u.hobelmann@web.de> writes:
> Still, people are looking to Python as a standard. If something
> doesn't work in Jython as it does in Python, Python is treated as a
> standard definition.
I'm sure you're right about that - doesn't mean it makes any sense.
The logical implication here is that Python (the "de facto" one),
_can't_ have any bugs in it. How could it? By definition whatever it
does is the _correct standard behavior_. Frankly, to me, that makes
it much closer to _insane_ than _standard_.
/Jon
-- 'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com
- Next message: Darmac: "Re: Emacs + clisp out redirection"
- Previous message: jayessay: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- In reply to: Ulrich Hobelmann: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Next in thread: Will Hartung: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Reply: Will Hartung: "Re: Lisp fragmentation (was Re: Python becoming less Lisp-like)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|