On Wed, 5 Jan 2011, Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2011-01-05, Tomasz Rola <rto...@ceti.com.pl> wrote: > > On Tue, 4 Jan 2011, Roy Smith wrote: > >> Alan Meyer <amey...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >>> On 1/4/2011 4:22 PM, Google Poster wrote: > >>> > >>>> The syntax reminds me of Lots of Interspersed Silly Parentheses > >>>> (L.I.S.P.), but without the parentheses. > >>> > >>> I haven't heard that version before. The one I heard was: > >>> > >>> "Lots of Irritating Single Parentheses". > >> > >> Long Involved Stupid Parentheses. > > > > Heh. One day, guys, when you have nothing better to do, try writing a > > parser for Lisp-like language (Common Lisp, Scheme, whatever). After that, > > do the same with some other language of your preference (Python, Java, > > whatever). Compare time and code spent... > > I've heard that justification many times, but I think it's 200% > specious. > > 1) How often is a compiler for language X written? > > 2) How often is source code written in language X? > > 3) How often is that source code in language X read/modified? > > If you compare those numbers you'll realize that optimizing for case 1 > at the expense of cases 2 & 3 is just plain stupid.
You are right here. OTOH, a parser or even a compiler are just nice examples of non-trivial code. IMHO, the more non-trivial task one is trying to perform with a language, the more one appreciates language features that seem nonsense for less trivial programs. While in theory one can do the same job with a shovel and an excavator, in practice one should use the right tool depending on the job. Trying to get a car from a snowdrift with excavator requires a lot of attention and caution. It is easy (even if tiring) task for a man with a shovel. So one could extrapolate from this, that using excavator is ridiculous compared to using shovel. However, building dams or digging mile-long trenches with a shovel is not only ridicule but a sign of bad planning or desperation. And maybe even an incompetence. Now, how often they are building dams, trenches and other nontrivial constructions? I would hypothesise that in a society well developed, this happens quite often. Maybe even once every two days. The truth is, once you have an excavator, you don't shy away from using it and you more often than not are open for doing non-trivial assignments. > Perhaps there is > somebody on the planet who finds Lisp as easy to read/modify as > Python, but I've never met him/her and never have you... Here you are wrong. I meet the guy every day in a mirror. Now you have met him, too. I doubt, however, that I am so extraordinary as to be just one on the whole planet. > Optimizing a language for the ease of the compiler writer is like > saying, sure, that car is expensive to buy, expensive to run, doesn't > work well, and tends to kill a lot of people, but it took less time to > design! I guess every compiled language designed so far has been somewhat optimised for compilation by it's designers. If you say that some language, like Common Lisp, had been optimised for compiler at the expense of human programmer, I disagree. I find programing in CL to be nice experience, maybe even a refreshing one. From what I have read about Lisp history so far, your claims don't match the facts (at least facts as I know them). True, it requires some learning. AFAIK, nobody has to learn, so it is purely voluntary effort. Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com ** -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
