[Ivan Van Laningham] > [Tom Anderson] > > [Guido] > > "I expect tons of disagreement in the feedback, all from ex-Lisp-or-Scheme > > folks. :-)"
> > I disagree strongly with Guido's proposals, and i am not an ex-Lisp, > > -Scheme or -any-other-functional-language programmer; my only other > > real language is Java. I wonder if i'm an outlier. > > So, if you're a pythonista who loves map and lambda, and disagrees > > with Guido, what's your background? Functional or not? > I'm a pythonista who doesn't love them. Same here. `lambda' could go away. Yet `map' is sometimes useful... > And I've spent months inside of Lisp/Emacs Lisp/Scheme [...] I worked on Lisp / Scheme / Emacs-Lisp for many dozens of years. Moreover, a few times for unusual machines, I implemented Lisps. > (I have the world's second largest .emacs file [my friend Andy Glew > has the largest], even though I can't use it on Windows;-). You are a shameless lier! :-) It just _cannot_ beat the size of mine, at least not so long ago when I still was an Emacs user. And despite its size, my .emacs worked on a lot of systems, Windows included. > Personally, I find that Lisp & its derivatives put your head in a very > weird place. Lisp / Scheme are very OK! Usable for a wide range of applications, including system' -- with the proper choices, they can be fairly speedy as well. Yet, for ubiquitous and day-to-day work, Python is nicer! :-) -- François Pinard http://pinard.progiciels-bpi.ca -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list