Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure

Re:Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure by pcof on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @11:31AM (#972322)

I predict you will get a great deal of pythonic fire. Nevertheless, I find it very nice that you plan to deal with the specific libraries you're using in the next posts. The greatest problem in adopting CL seems to be the extremely decentralized (not to say disorganized) library spacs.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure by benhoyt on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @02:26PM (#972679)

   "Python 2 is fine now – but in the coming months and years new libraries,
   features, and performance improvements are only going to be introduced
   in Python 3, and I didn’t want to get left behind or forced to take on
   an expensive and time consuming port in the future."

Does this argument hold some water, or is Python 2-to-3 conversion often pretty trivial in practice?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why I chose Common Lisp over Python, Ruby, and Clojure by etal on Wednesday December 02, 2009 @07:17PM (#973347)

Word on the street is that the 2to3 tool is magical. Just run the Py2.6 interpreter with the "-3" flag for warnings, fix the warnings, and run the 2to3 tool to get your port.

[ Parent | on HN ]