Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

在 2006年12月8日星期五 UTC+8下午7:07:09，Mark Tarver写道： > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > think that one has over the other? > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > just a question for my general education. > > Mark 12 years ago.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Op 2017-09-30, Marko Rauhamaa schreef : > Robert L. is only trolling. He uses fake technical comments to spread > white supremacy in his signatures. My apologies. Stephan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 9:03:32 PM UTC+1, Stephan Houben wrote: > Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : > > (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) > > ===> > > 9 > > > > In Python? > > >>> sum([2, 3, 4]) > 9 Dow you have to keep replying to this out and out racist, as none of his posts have any re

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stephan Houben : > Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : >> (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) >> ===> >> 9 >> >> In Python? > sum([2, 3, 4]) > 9 Robert L. is only trolling. He uses fake technical comments to spread white supremacy in his signatures. Marko -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listin

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : > (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) > ===> > 9 > > In Python? >>> sum([2, 3, 4]) 9 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Jorge Godoy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) writes: > > > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >> John J. Lee wrote: > >> > "Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > > >> >>On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > >> > >> > I

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) writes: > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> John J. Lee wrote: >> > "Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> >>On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: >> >> > Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes t

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John J. Lee wrote: > > "Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > >>On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > > > Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes to serve > > requests, rather than "separate" inter

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John J. Lee wrote: > "Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes to serve > requests, rather than "separate" interpreters? We couldn't see a way. That's what CGI

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 15, 7:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > "Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > [...] > > >mod_pythonrelies on an unsupported feature of Python, namely > > > multiple interpreters --> risk of more pain wit

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Graham Dumpleton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: [...] > > mod_python relies on an unsupported feature of Python, namely > > multiple interpreters --> risk of more pain with C extensions. > > As usual, those bashing up on mod_python tend

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > John J. Lee wrote: > > > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > [...] > > > >>Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble > > >>with version issues, especially

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John J. Lee wrote: > > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > > >>Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble > >>with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. > >>MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - th

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John J. Lee wrote: > John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [...] > >>Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble >>with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. >>MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - they all have platform/version >>incompatibility proble

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble > with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. > MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - they all have platform/version > incompatibility problems. I just spent three da

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Gabriel Genellina" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > escribiŽ�: [...] > > ill-conceived idea (not because of Python, note!). The electronic > > gadget people need in the developing world is a mobile phone not a > > computer. >

OLPC vs. mobile phones (was Re: merits of Lisp vs Python)

Gabriel Genellina wrote: > En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > > > The electronic gadget people need in the developing world is a mobile phone > > not a > > computer. > > What for? > That requires a phone company, installed antennas everywhere, and > av

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: >> (nee "One Laptop Per Child", OLPC, and once known as the "$100 laptop") >> uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: > On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: > >> (nee "One Laptop Per Child", OLPC, and once known as the "$100 >> laptop") >> uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's >> slated to be the most

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: > (nee "One Laptop Per Child", OLPC, and once known as the "$100 laptop") > uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's > slated to be the most widely distributed Python distro if it hits even > half of

Python-friendly hosting (was Re: merits of Lisp vs Python)

On 9 Mar, 02:32, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [Dedicated server offerings] I'm not so familiar with dedicated servers, being unlikely to buy into that kind of hosting any time soon - I'm not running a business with serious reliability/control/uptime constraints where I could justify sp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Alex Martelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | later sold for mucho dinero) is an unabashed fan of Python; the "XO" | (nee "One Laptop Per Child", OLPC, and once known as the "$100 laptop") | uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's | sla

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > "alex23" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hosting providers and distro > > > makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They > > > care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. > > > Ask them. > > > > Do you have any rea

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There's denial in the Python community that this is a problem, > but it is. The Ruby on Rails people get it; they work to provide a > seamless experience for web developers. Which is why their market > share is way up over two years ago. I do know th

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Any *real* hosting provider is going to support whatever >>language and environment I tell them to, because I'm going to pay them >>a lot of money for excellent support and if they give me any trouble I >>will go with someone who p

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > >Care to name a "real" hosting provider that cares whether Python works? > http://www.webfaction.com/ Thanks! This is good to know about. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Paul Rubin wrote: > >Care to name a "real" hosting provider that cares whether Python works? http://www.webfaction.com/ -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ "I disrespectfully agree." --SJM --

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Chris Mellon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Any *real* hosting provider is going to support whatever > language and environment I tell them to, because I'm going to pay them > a lot of money for excellent support and if they give me any trouble I > will go with someone who provides what I want. H

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 3/8/07, Dennis Lee Bieber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:13:15 GMT, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: > > > > > When starting out with this project, I'd made the assumption that > > Python was a stable, working, well-supported

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 8, 5:23 am, John Nagle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brian Adkins wrote: > > Ken Tilton wrote: > > >> John Nagle wrote: > > Turns out John is having quite a tough time with Python web hosting (the > > thread has split off to a c.l.p only fork), so I'm going to cut him some > > slack. Maybe wi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: > Ken Tilton wrote: > >> John Nagle wrote: > Turns out John is having quite a tough time with Python web hosting (the > thread has split off to a c.l.p only fork), so I'm going to cut him some > slack. Maybe with some lovin' we can woo him over to c.l.l ;) Been there,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > John Nagle wrote: >> Brian Adkins wrote: >>> John Nagle wrote: >>> If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some >>> serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil >>> purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? >> >>

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This may sound like I'm baiting you, but it's a sincere question. If > your experience with Perl was so good, why did you decide to pursue > Python? Trouble free hosting and no problems in development - sounds > like it worked out well for you. Er, becaus

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: > Brian Adkins wrote: > >> John Nagle wrote: > > >> If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some >> serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil >> purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? > > >If you w

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: >> Brian Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, >>> why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? >> >> Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, >>why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? > > Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists > handle all the OS stuff

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > Brian Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, >> why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? > > Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists > handle all the OS stuff s

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, > why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists handle all the OS stuff so you can concentrate on you

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: > Brian Adkins wrote: >> alex23 wrote: >> >>> John Nagle wrote: >>> Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. >>> >>> >>> Do you have any rea

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: > alex23 wrote: > >> John Nagle wrote: >> >>> Hosting providers and distro >>> makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They >>> care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. >>> Ask them. >> >> >> Do you have any real experience with recent linux

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

alex23 wrote: > John Nagle wrote: >> Hosting providers and distro >> makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They >> care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. >> Ask them. > > Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any > _real_ hostin

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"alex23" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hosting providers and distro > > makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They > > care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. > > Ask them. > > Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any > _real_

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: > Hosting providers and distro > makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They > care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. > Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any _real_ hosting providers? Because what

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: > John Nagle wrote: > If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some > serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil > purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? If you want to post jokes, try rec.humor.funny.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: > John Nagle wrote: > >>Neither Lisp nor Python is an "industrial strength language". >> The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro >> makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They >> care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python o

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: >Neither Lisp nor Python is an "industrial strength language". > The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro > makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They > care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. > Ask them. > >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: > George Sakkis wrote: > >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> 1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language Neither Lisp nor Python is an "industrial strength language". The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Pyt

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

George Sakkis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> 1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language > ^^^ > You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it > means. [Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:38:30 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote: > > Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote: >> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: >> >> > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >> > think that one has over the other? >> > >> > Note I'm not a Python person and

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Fuzzyman ha escrito: > Perhaps only with the addendum that although 'Lisp roolz', no-one uses > for anything of relevance anymore and it is continuing it's geriatric > decline into obscurity. ;-) I do not think that i cannot agree with the contrary of this but i do not think the contrary neither.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

defcon8 wrote: > All of you are nazis! Hmmm... that might work. :-) Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

All of you are nazis! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: > > > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > > think that one has over the other? > > > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > > just a question for

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > think that one has over the other? > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > just a question for my general education. > > Mark Kill

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: > Rob Thorpe wrote: > > Anders J. Munch wrote: > >> Let u(t) be the actual memory used by the program at time t. > >> Let r(t) be the size of reachable memory at time t. > >> > >> Require that u(t) is a member of O(t -> max{t'<=t: r(t')}) > >> > >> There. That wasn't so hard,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: > Anders J. Munch wrote: >> Let u(t) be the actual memory used by the program at time t. >> Let r(t) be the size of reachable memory at time t. >> >> Require that u(t) is a member of O(t -> max{t'<=t: r(t')}) >> >> There. That wasn't so hard, was it? > > That's quite a clever def

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Come on; you guys can't just leave this at 999 posts! > Funny you should whine, i was just getting ready to sign off with: I noticed while singing the praises of auto-indentation that there was a shortcoming in The Greatest Feature Known to Editing source code, whic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Anders J. Munch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > jayessay wrote: > > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part > > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for > > the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. > > Really? R

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: > Rob Thorpe wrote: > > Anders J. Munch wrote: > >> Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to > >> run for unbounded lengths of time? > > > > You can't. > > > > The thing about the spec not defining GC is almost a bit of humour. > > No-one woul

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: > Anders J. Munch wrote: >> Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to >> run for unbounded lengths of time? > > You can't. > > The thing about the spec not defining GC is almost a bit of humour. > No-one would use an implementation with no GC. > >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Pascal Bourguignon wrote: > "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Anders J. Munch wrote: > >> jayessay wrote: > >> > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part > >> > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for > >> > the same reasons

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anders J. Munch wrote: >> jayessay wrote: >> > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part >> > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for >> > the same reasons likely not part of any language's def

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: > jayessay wrote: > > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part > > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for > > the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. > > Really? So how do you write a por

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: > jayessay wrote: > > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part > > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for > > the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. > > Really? So how do you write a port

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

jayessay wrote: > Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part > of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for > the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to r

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: > Once you can do the above then you can phrase programs entirely in > terms of composition of functions, which is what functional programming > is about. There are many aspects to functional programming. Some languages (like Lisp and Python) are very impure and hardly encourage

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins wrote: > This is not a response to any particular post, but rather to the > general argument that macros are not as useful as we Lispers claim. > > Here is a fairly complete GUI RSS reader in 90 lines of Lisp For comparison, here's how something with a similar API might be used from P

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Strictly speaking, only first-class functions are required, and >>tail-recursion optimisation is only an implentation detail. Now it's >>obvious that when it comes to real-life-size programs, this is a >>*very* important de

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any > > reason you couldn't > > > > (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bruno Desthuilliers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Strictly speaking, only first-class functions are required, and > tail-recursion optimisation is only an implentation detail. Now it's > obvious that when it comes to real-life-size programs, this is a > *very* important detail !-) I don't buy this

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | Paul Rubin wrote: | > [...] There are programs you can write in C but not in Lisp, | > like device drivers that poke specific machine addresses. | | I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any | reason you couldn't | (poke d

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin schrieb: > GC also gets rid of programs. There are programs you can write in C > but not in Lisp, like device drivers that poke specific machine > addresses. You are talking about an ANSI Common Lisp implementation. But nothing stops a vendor to deliver its CL with libs that support t

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Kaz Kylheku a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >>André Thieme a écrit : >> >>>Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb: >>> >> >>(snip) >> Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative. >>> >>> >>>Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard. >> >>If you go that way, ther

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit : > Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: > >>Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit : >> >>>Rob Thorpe wrote: >>> >>> Mathias Panzenboeck wrote: >Mark Tarver wrote: > > >>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >>think that one h

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin a écrit : > "Rob Thorpe" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>Once you can do the above then you can phrase programs entirely in >>terms of composition of functions, which is what functional programming >>is about. >> >>Getting good performance though is problematic without being able to >>e

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

This is not a response to any particular post, but rather to the general argument that macros are not as useful as we Lispers claim. Here is a fairly complete GUI RSS reader in 90 lines of Lisp (the GUI code itself is 90 lines, but it makes use of some RSS reading/writing code I had laying around

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > So don't (poke (random) value). That would be obvious to anyone > > capable of writing a device driver in C or Lisp or Oberon or > > Similarly in C programs, don't do > > *random = 0; > > Avoiding that is easier said than done. C programs s

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Jean-Paul Calderone wrote: > On 11 Dec 2006 03:01:32 -0800, Ravi Teja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >Timofei Shatrov wrote: > > > > [snip] > > > >Of course, doctest is hardly the ultimate testing solution. But it does > >an admirable job for many cases where you don't need to setup elaborate > >tes

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:19:49 +0100, > wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> So don't (poke (random) value). That would be obvious to anyone >> capable of writing a device driver in C or Lisp or Oberon or > > Similarly in C programs, don't do > > *random = 0; > > Avoiding that is easier sai

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 11 Dec 2006 03:01:32 -0800, Ravi Teja <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Timofei Shatrov wrote: > > [snip] > >Of course, doctest is hardly the ultimate testing solution. But it does >an admirable job for many cases where you don't need to setup elaborate >tests. > >> It's not surprising that no one use

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > So don't (poke (random) value). That would be obvious to anyone > capable of writing a device driver in C or Lisp or Oberon or Similarly in C programs, don't do *random = 0; Avoiding that is easier said than done. C programs suffer endless bugs of that type.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > Even regarding interupts, I don't see a problem without a solution: > > (with-interupts-and-garbage-collection-disabled > >(poke destination (peek source)) > > It's not just GC or interrupts, it's the possibility of clobbering the > Lis

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Even regarding interupts, I don't see a problem without a solution: > (with-interupts-and-garbage-collection-disabled >(poke destination (peek source)) It's not just GC or interrupts, it's the possibility of clobbering the Lisp heap. If the peek/poke addres

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Whatever do you mean? The portion of memory used for memory-mapped > registers is simply excluded from GC; everything else works as normal. Well ok, if the peek and poke functions validate the addresses. > All modern Lisps (yes, *Common* Lisps) support a

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any > > reason you couldn't > > > > (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp if you use something like tha

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any >> reason you couldn't >> >> (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp if y

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > GC also gets rid of programs. There are programs you can write in C > > but not in Lisp, like device drivers that poke specific machine > > addresses. > > I'm sure this would be news to the people who wrote the operating > system for the Lisp machine.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any > reason you couldn't > > (poke destination (peek source)) That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing in Lisp if you use something like that. Writing in this "augmented Li

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: >> In fact, all previously correct programs continue to work as before, >> and in addition, some hitherto incorrect programs become correct. >> That's an increase in power: new programs are possible without losing >> the old ones. > > There's more to p

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > > [...] There are programs you can write in C > but not in Lisp, like device drivers that poke specific machine > addresses. > I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any reason you couldn't (poke destination (peek source)) in some version of Lisp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Kaz Kylheku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Incorrect, I believe. The above is like saying Lisp's lack of > > optional manual storage allocation and machine pointers makes Lisp > > less powerful. > > That is true. By itself, that feature makes Lisp less poweful for > real-world software dev, wh

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Kaz Kylheku wrote: > The removal for the need for manual object lifetime computation does > not cause a whole class of useful programs to be rejected. Sometimes you must be able to guarantee that a resource has been disposed before you can continue. That is why we have finalisers in OCaml and disp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:05:06 -0500 Kirk Sluder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: #> And there is something that is missing here in arguing about computer #> language notations in relationship to human language readability, or #> correspondence to spoken language. I'm not writing code for another #> human

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:52:34 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Implementing pattern matching does not mean imitating Haskell or OCaml. We were explicitly comparing lisp with haskell and ocaml. Adding features built into haskell and ocaml but not present in ANSI common lisp would therefore

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:49:46 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > For example, when faced with a problem best solved using pattern matching > in Lisp, most Lisp programmers would reinvent an ad-hoc, informally > specified and bug-ridden pattern matcher of their own. No, I think most of us woul

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > haskell and ocaml are more popular than any lisp library that tries to > imitate Haskell and ocaml. Implementing pattern matching does not mean imitating Haskell or OCaml. > This only speaks to the relative > unpopularity of imitating these features of haskell and oca

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> What if eager impurity isn't the "very nature" of the problem but, >> rather, is the very nature of Tilton's chosen solution? > > That's the whole point which you keep missing - that a programming > la

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > After all, > Haskell and OCaml are more popular that any given Lisp variant with similar > features (e.g. pattern matching), AFAIK. What doublespeak! haskell and ocaml are more popular than any lisp library that tries to imita

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > What if eager impurity isn't the "very nature" of the problem but, rather, > is the very nature of Tilton's chosen solution? That's the whole point which you keep missing - that a programming language is expressive precisely to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: > On 2006-12-16 13:58:37 -0500, Jon Harrop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: >> Why do you think that uniform syntax is necessary to provide new >> paradigms when it is equivalent to infix syntax? > > Because it doesn't require one to write a parser for each new syntax > for each

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >