<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: I can has scripting?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58</link>
	<description>A Pythoneer's adventures with Chicken Scheme. ^_^ And more.</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:58:14 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: creidiki</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>creidiki</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 16:01:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-78</guid>
		<description>Concisiveness(sp?) is one of the things lispy languages are simply not very good at.

You just have to look at the (aborted) esh project - a system shell like bash, but with scheme syntax, or at the similar effort to make a system shell based on SBCL.

Chicken's (grep) suffers from this, as well as its existing, and rather convoluted, scsh-derived 'awk' egg.

I wish you good luck with it - i've been using chicken for all my "shell script" functionality for a bit, and I'd dearly love a concise replacement for awk or even just the inbuilt regex functions :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Concisiveness(sp?) is one of the things lispy languages are simply not very good at.</p>
<p>You just have to look at the (aborted) esh project - a system shell like bash, but with scheme syntax, or at the similar effort to make a system shell based on SBCL.</p>
<p>Chicken's (grep) suffers from this, as well as its existing, and rather convoluted, scsh-derived 'awk' egg.</p>
<p>I wish you good luck with it - i've been using chicken for all my "shell script" functionality for a bit, and I'd dearly love a concise replacement for awk or even just the inbuilt regex functions :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Hans Nowak</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-77</link>
		<dc:creator>Hans Nowak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 15:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-77</guid>
		<description>"""Implicit is clearly better than explicit in the domain of throwaway code, though.""" 

Maybe you're right; I'll need to experiment with this some more. A lot more.

"""Anyhow, if Pythoneers really believed explicit was better than implicit, they'd all switch to Java."""

Hm, I don't know about that. Java is verbose, but it does do a number of things implicitly that Python does not.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>"""Implicit is clearly better than explicit in the domain of throwaway code, though.""" </p>
<p>Maybe you're right; I'll need to experiment with this some more. A lot more.</p>
<p>"""Anyhow, if Pythoneers really believed explicit was better than implicit, they'd all switch to Java."""</p>
<p>Hm, I don't know about that. Java is verbose, but it does do a number of things implicitly that Python does not.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Cowan</title>
		<link>http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-76</link>
		<dc:creator>John Cowan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 07 Feb 2008 13:37:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://4.flowsnake.org/archives/58#comment-76</guid>
		<description>Implicit is clearly better than explicit in the domain of throwaway code, though.  Anyhow, if Pythoneers really believed explicit was better than implicit, they'd all switch to Java.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Implicit is clearly better than explicit in the domain of throwaway code, though.  Anyhow, if Pythoneers really believed explicit was better than implicit, they'd all switch to Java.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
