Carl Banks wrote: > On Jul 19, 4:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote: >> Carl Banks wrote: >>> On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote: >>>>> E.g. the number system: In many Lisp >>>>> implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python >>>>> 2.6 >>>>> "2 / 3" results in "0". Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now >>>>> it returns "0.6666666666", which will result in lots of fun for porting >>>>> applications written for Python <= 2.6. >>>> How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in >>>> the market place despite starting 40 years later. >>> There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original >>> thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good >>> job discussing the issue. >>> I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy >>> with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). >>> Carl Banks >> This is an incredibly important discussion > > It might be an important question but a discussion on Usenet about it > is utterly useless. > > >> and is much weaker because >> it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. > > In the same way that a movie is weaker because the director edited out > the bad scenes. > > >> In fact, >> picking a computer language is the most important discussion in >> Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope >> we can keep this thread going for a few months. > > Please feel free to extend this flame-war along for a few months on > comp.lang.lisp. Not here. > > > Carl Banks
Uh Carl ... are you familiar with the concept of mocking humor? -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list