[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Alex Martelli wrote: >> Steve R. Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... >> > > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not >> > > scale. Nor will Python. >> > >> > This is a curious statement, given that Python is famous for scaling well. >> >> I think "ridiculous" is a better characterization than "curious", even >> if you're seriously into understatement. >> > > When you consider that there was just a big flamewar on comp.lang.lisp > about the lack of standard mechanisms for both threading and sockets in > Common Lisp (with the lispers arguing that it wasn't needed) I find it > "curious" that someone can say Common Lisp scales well. >
It's not all that curious. Every Common Lisp implementation supports sockets, and most support threads. The "flamewar" was about whether these mechanisms should be (or could be) standardized across all implementation. It has little to do with CL's ability to scale well. You simply use the socket and thread API provided by your implementation; if you need to move to another, you write a thin compatibility layer. In Python, since there is no standard and only one implementation that counts, you write code for that implementation the same way you write for the socket and thread API provided by your Lisp implementation. I still dislike the phrase "scales well," but I don't see how differences in socket and thread API's across implementations can be interpreted as causing Lisp to "scale badly." Can you elaborate on what you mean? -- This is a song that took me ten years to live and two years to write. - Bob Dylan -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
