Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- From: André Thieme <address.good.until.2006.dec.22@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 19:28:32 +0100
Jon Harrop schrieb:
André Thieme wrote:Jon Harrop schrieb:That is already a lot more than a "couple of macros" and it is still aA complete pattern matcher will be several screens full of code, because
long way from the functionality provided by the pattern matchers bundled
with any of the languages I listed.
it really isn't the easiest thing to do.
The pattern matchers in ML compilers are thousands of lines of code, yes.
I suppose that a good amount of this code is used for efficiency?
And I further suppose that the PM is written in ML itself - so abstract
programming techniques were used that wouldn't be available in low level
langs like Pascal or C, yes?
The good thing is that it can be added to lisp as a library, without changing the sources to the
You can get the semantics but not the performance because ML pattern
matchers can leverage the compiler's internal run-time representations of
I see. In Lisp the macro can do compile time optimizations, so a PM
could have a real good performance that should not be too far away.
- Prev by Date: Re: help persuading/reassuring a client that I should use Lisp
- Next by Date: Re: Common Lisp from a Unix perspective - barriers to using CL
- Previous by thread: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python
- Next by thread: Re: merits of Lisp vs Python