Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far? After a bit of pain getting started and finding decent docs (while waiting for the books to arrive) I've found the language quite easy to use. I haven't got into closures or macros yet - I need to get more familiar with the basics first, but first impressions are favorable. It seems that there is nothing conceptually in Python that I can't reasonably easily do in Lisp, but the Python syntax is much more straightforward for most of the basics I think (such as dictionaries, sets, list comprehensions etc), and the function/naming conventions for the core language is much clearer and more obvious than in Lisp. Just remember: today is the car of the cdr of your life. Once upon a time, I was working at a company that was a commercialized MIT Lisp project rewritten in C. One day I was amused to discover that buried deep in the code were a pair of functions, car() and cdr()... -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Hi all, On Dec 28 2006, 4:51 pm, Paddy3118 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view of the other language; I sort of fall into this category. I'm a Java developer by trade, but use Python for all of my non-work related projects, and any scripting I need at work. I hadn't looked at Lisp. I've been tempted a few times to look more into Lisp, especially after reading some of Paul Graham's stuff which has a strong bias toward Lisp. The thread gave me a kick start into looking into Lisp more deeply, and over the Christmas break I downloaded CLisp and ordered a couple of Lisp books. There were no arguments that persuaded me particularly - more curiosity about a few of the concepts that were bandied about: a) Closures - and what they give you that Python co-routines don't. b) Macros - how they can be used, and what advantages they give you. They were the real persuasion points for me. So far? After a bit of pain getting started and finding decent docs (while waiting for the books to arrive) I've found the language quite easy to use. I haven't got into closures or macros yet - I need to get more familiar with the basics first, but first impressions are favorable. It seems that there is nothing conceptually in Python that I can't reasonably easily do in Lisp, but the Python syntax is much more straightforward for most of the basics I think (such as dictionaries, sets, list comprehensions etc), and the function/naming conventions for the core language is much clearer and more obvious than in Lisp. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [3] I thought it was particularly cool how Tcl could bolt on a class based object oriented system as a library. The word class isn't built into the language, but that kind of evaluator lets you add it. I have written about two notrivial scripts in Tcl. I don't think I will ever bother to write another, particularly since I now know Python. Dealing with arrays is an absolute pain, because the language doesn't have references and arrays as first-class objects. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Hummer wrote: I learned PHP for ease of web application development ... PHP is great for easily developing _insecure_ web applications. But if you want them not to leak like a sieve, things get a bit more complicated. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
[x-post removed] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. If a Lisper is looking at Python, zie will be reading c.l.py, no? -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ I support family values -- Addams family values --www.nancybuttons.com -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Paddy wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at That's already covered in the orginal thread. Same two newsgroups, same crowd of people. What's the difference? Keep it in the original thread where uninterested people can continue to ignore it. Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. You're re-starting the same thread under a new root article, thereby evading kill filters set up on the original thread. In halfway decent newsreaders, people can killfile by thread, whereby all articles associated with the same ancestral root article are removed. It's very bad practice to re-introduce continuations of long flamebait threads under different thread identities. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Paddy wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. Then post a separate message to each group. If you expect everyone on Usenet to obey your command to reply with only what you want them to reply with, you're a sad naive fool. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Ray wrote: Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? いいえ! 違います。 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Steven Haflich wrote: Ray wrote: Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? いいえ! 違います。 iie! chigaimas. No, I beg to differ! (Hey, I'm in right the middle of preparing my Kanji-drilling Lisp program for distribution). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view of the other language; (deep breath, this is a long, as well as grammatically incorrect sentence), THEN WHY NOT POST ON WHAT ARGUMENTS PERSUADED YOU. I fail two thirds of your requirements - at least now. However, several years ago, I knew Python and was only passingly familiar with Lisp. To me, at that time, Lisp was a language where the compiler/interpreter writers were too lazy to write a real parser. I object to doing things that computers can do [1]. I wasn't completely happy with Python though. It does threads poorly (no concurrency unless you release the GIL in a C extension). The buffer protocol has issues (particularly if you release the GIL) [2]. The Numpy stuff is bogged down with it's own backward compatible history. Tkinter leaks memory if you're not careful with it. Adding a C extension is non-trivial and takes your application from being a collection of scripts to a distutils driven thing. These are real issues that I still bump my head on (because I still use Python a lot of the time). For those reasons, I'm still searching for a better language for my needs. Anyway, at that time, I saw an article about adding Hygienic Macros to Python. The term caught my attention, and it was shot down in the Python world. Of course, malcontent that I am, I had to go find out what that was about. I had already seen how in Tcl you could create new constructs. [3] Turns out Scheme and Common Lisp take that idea to a new and higher place. I found out the reason Lispers [4] stuck with their lazily written parsers is that in exchange for infix operators, they can pretty much assimilate any other language. Here is an easily readable piece of Python: def doit(n): for i in xrange(n): print i With very little effort, here it is in Scheme: (def doit(n) (for i in (xrange n) (print i))) Don't any other Pythonistas find that interesting? Scheme could suck in all of Python's beloved semantics with an incredibly similar syntax in a couple days. [5] It was an interesting revelation to me. Then if you wanted to add new features (Python 2.5 with for example), you could do it yourself. Moreover, you could steal good features from other languages too. The point to all of this is that the cross pollination is arguably a good thing. [6] If the Schemer's had stuck in their camp, I would never had known that they had something worth looking at. This is the same way that I was happily using Perl in college, and some Perl/Python exchange got me to look at Python. OTHERWISE LET THIS POST WITHER AND DIE ALONE. It will die on it's own. Add it to your killfile, ignore it in Google Groups whatever. More bandwidth was wasted by Paris Hilton and Britney Spears than in this winding thread... Cheers. [1] A quote from Olin Shivers, and apparently he likes Lisp. That struck me as ironic at first. [2] Interestingly, Jython handles threads and buffers much better because it's built on a virtual machine that considers those important. Of course with Jython, you have to embrace the rest of the Java environment... [3] I thought it was particularly cool how Tcl could bolt on a class based object oriented system as a library. The word class isn't built into the language, but that kind of evaluator lets you add it. [4] I don't consider myself a Lisper or Schemer. I'm just exploring the programming language space trying to learn new ideas. [5] Incidently, I haven't found the version of Scheme that gives me concurrent threads, efficient buffers, C FFI, and numeric arrays the way I want, but I'm still looking. [6] Kenny Tilton pointed that out several times in the other thread. There are many more lurkers looking and learning than posters posting. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. snip (I suspect this thread to be very short - even the original poster seems to have given up on the day he started the thread). I use both. And Java, and C++ too. Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? - Paddy. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
I am rather annoyed at the apples vs. oranges arguments I frequently see on Reddit and the like. I picked up python last summer after going through a very messy breakup (it seemed like a good thing to do with all the alone time). Anyway, ever since I started writing python, I've been bugged by a apples vs. oranges coworker to learn Lisp, because they are very similar. So at the beginning of this thread, I was reminded that I should go check it out. That's all it did for me. It reminded me to do something I was planning on doing myself anyway. Lisp vs. Python? How 'bout Haskell vs. Java, PBASIC vs. C++, and while we're at it, SmallTalk vs. Assembler! This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. snip I use both. And Java, and C++ too. Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? I agree with this entirely. I started learning PBASIC to work with a microcontroller. I learned Java for portability. I learned PHP for ease of web application development (I've been largely unimpressed with the python frameworks...but it's also lack of experience). I use python for utilities I need, and Lisp is great for some of the functional needs I have (see Mosquito-Lisp and the MOSREF project), and I can see use in it. But how many web applications have you seen written in Assembler? How many OS kernels written in Lisp? I bought my girlfriend an art desk for Christmas. I didn't use a freakin' hammer to drive the screws. Wrong tool for the job. Each language has its ups and downs. Call me the Martin Luther King of programming languages, but I have a dream. We can no sooner say one language is better than another than say white people are superior to black people. We're equal in our own respects. Paul -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?
Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view of the other language; (deep breath, this is a long, as well as grammatically incorrect sentence), THEN WHY NOT POST ON WHAT ARGUMENTS PERSUADED YOU. OTHERWISE LET THIS POST WITHER AND DIE ALONE. If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list