Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. >> >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lisp already provid

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've read all the arguments against significant indents/whitespace, or > in favour of braces, and while there are a few minor good points they > make, a few edge cases where Python's significant indentation is > sub-optimal, overall I believe that the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say > "Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great > responsibility. Be careful." then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more > seriously. Who are "we"? I was a heavy Python and Java

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 04:24:43 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > >> On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this >> me

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

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 Advantages of Python: 1). More and better

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Thankfully folks (including me) seem to be starting to cool off, so perhaps we can disucss this in somewhat calmer register. I think that Kenny unintentionally sold macros short by implying that they are merely window-dressing for boilerplate, and you seem to have a misunderstanding of macros, whic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Some languages are too expressive. :) > Look, all snarkiness aside, it just isn't true that "stuff like this is > impossible in other languages". If Wolfram Fenske had said "stuff like > this isn't easy in many other languages" he would have been right. Remember, Lisp

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Carl Banks wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > [snip] > > What Python has is stupid slogans > > ("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite > > community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe thes

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > But Lisp's syntax is so unlike most written natural languages that that it > is a whole different story. Yes, the human brain is amazingly flexible, > and people can learn extremely complex syntax and grammars (especially if > they start young enough) so I'm not surpr

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

tmh wrote: > This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed > through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this > is a 2 glass of wine response. > Thanks for the comments. I think it is great that you took a "harder and less travelled way". It may be that

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 14:00:10 +, Timofei Shatrov wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this > message: > >>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: >> >>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object sy

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > Ken Tilton wrote: > > >>Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key >>combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the >>language that handles indentation best. > > > Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents au

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Alex Mizrahi wrote: > (message (Hello 'Ken) > (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500)) > ( > > KT> keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks > KT> always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But > KT> no one does. :) > > certainly

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > >> >>David Lees wrote: > > >>Those raving about >>Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about >> what they are talking. > > > Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > > Mark Tarver wrote: >> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >> think that one has over the other? > > (Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure > co

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > Forth was always unreadable to me but I never did much. I thought its > aficionados were silly. Yes if you have a complicated math expression > in Lisp, you have to sit there for a moment rearranging it in infix in > your mind to figure out what it says. The point is that s

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > > >>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > >>you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7. >>you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4. >>if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, * >>is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > > >>if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >>as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >>the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Python doesn't annoyingly rip you out of the real world to code in it. Anyone looking at a python script can get a sense of where it's going. --Blair -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lis

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Paul) (you :wrote :on '(09 Dec 2006 02:55:49 -0800)) ( PR> "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: ??>> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) ??>> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into ??>> CPS. PR> It's not en

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Intuitive interfaces (GUI, languages,...) are an urban legend, pure > illusion. You have to do hard work and practice to understand them. Well if you write enough code in general, the principles stick with you. What I found with Perl was that after not u

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stefan Nobis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So why do you think, Common Lisp or Macros are a bad thing? What's the > difference (from the perspective of understanding) between a function > foo and a macro bar? Both just transform their inputs. It's just > another form of abstraction and from time to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > Python is more readable than Lisp because it stays readable even if > you don't use it on a daily basis. Girls, this is really bullshit! None programming language is readable. I teach programming to complete beginners and I tried some languages --

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [Extensibility of syntax (via Lisp like macros)] > In the real world, programmers aren't lone wolves stalking the > programming landscape doing their own thing. Whether we're talking > open source projects maintained by volunteers, or commercial > softwa

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powe

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 12:43:34 +0100, Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> tried to confuse everyone with this message: >samantha wrote: > >> What are you? A pointy haired boss? > >What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google >Groups? 8) Says a person with a 13-line sig. --

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human readers, who are the vast > majority of programmers. > > Yes, people will get used to most syntax, eventually. But "used to" > doesn't necessarily mean "can read it efficiently". I did a lot of FORTH > cod

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +--- | Wolfram Fenske wrote: | > if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own | > as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as | > the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like thi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Andrea Griffini>Is this worth investigation or it has already been suggested/tried ?< Recently some people around the net have discussed about similar ideas as a possible way to speed up Ruby interpreters a lot. Bye, bearophile -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes: > > Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays > > completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!! > > Hmm. I haven't used Lisp in a while and no longer find it so > readable

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:56:35 -0800, Paul Rubin wrote: > The syntax is a pretty superficial thing. The reaction from outsiders > to Lisp's parentheses and Python's indentation-based structure is > about the same. You get used to it either way. I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human reade

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > Note also that after any amount of dicing I simply hit a magic key > combo and the editor reindents everything. In a sense, Lisp is the > language that handles indentation best. Erm ... because there's an editor for it that indents automatically? Or did I miss the point? Rega

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

samantha wrote: > What are you? A pointy haired boss? What are you? A 12 year old that has just learned to use Google Groups? 8) Regards, Björn Xpost cll,clp Fup2 poster -- BOFH excuse #211: Lightning strikes. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Ramon Diaz-Uriarte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > a) "old-fashioned"? Is that supposed to be an argument? I guess > addition and multiplication are old-fashioned, and so is calculus;so? > I think "old-fashioned" should only carry a negative connotation in > the fashion world, not in programming.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Andrea) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 11:08:34 +0100)) ( ??>> so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very ??>> performance-critical function. ??>> but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long ??>> and hairy function containi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) >> it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS. > > It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually > save the conti

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > What is up the power continuum from Lisp? 3-Lisp. ;) Pascal -- My website: http://p-cos.net Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/ -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Alex Mizrahi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > we can implement Scheme's call-with-current-continuation first :) > it's relatively easy -- just a code walker that coverts everyting into CPS. It's not enough to convert to CPS, you have to be able to actually save the continuation when you switch to a

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

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. >From my point of view as neither a Lisp nor Python

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What is up the power continuum from Lisp? These days I've been fooling with Haskell. Mozart/Oz is also interesting. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Ken) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 04:26:02 -0500)) ( KT> keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an excuse: Lispniks KT> always /talk/ about macros giving us the ability to create a DSL. But KT> no one does. :) certainly there's no reason to make a new DSL each

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Steven) (you :wrote :on '(Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:02:06 +1100)) ( SD> It is a good thing that when Fred decides to stop contributing to an SD> open source project (or leave the company), other people can read his SD> code without having to learn his Uber-Special Custom Macro Exten

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > Anything any language can do is possible in any other language Not true. Concurrency, for example. > Lisp developers so often gloss over that: "Oh, > feature X is *easy*, I could write it in a couple of macros. Two or three. > Maybe thirty. Or forty, max. And they would

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:02:59 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > you have an expression 3 + 4 which yields 7. > you have an expression 4 * 1 which yields 4. > if you paste 3 + 4 in place of 1, you'll have 4 * 3 + 4 = 16. as we know, * > is commutative, but 3 + 4 * 4 = 19. > so result depends on implicit

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Alex Mizrahi wrote: ... > so we can see PyDict access. moreover, it's inlined, since it's very > performance-critical function. > but even inlined PyDict access is not fast at all. ma_lookup is a long and > hairy function containing the loop. I once had a crazy idea about the lookup speed prob

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 08 Dec 2006 19:56:42 -0800, Paul Rubin <"http://phr.cx"@nospam.invalid> wrote: (...) > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A > modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious > Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas. Paul, I find most

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Paul) (you :wrote :on '(08 Dec 2006 17:15:32 -0800)) ( PR> Huh? Are you saying Lisp systems never release new versions? And you PR> can't implement Python generators as Lisp macros in any reasonable PR> way. You could do them in Scheme using call-with-current-continuation

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > > Do you know the Paul Graham piece "Beating the Averages"? It's at: > >http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html > > The error in it is that Lisp is really just another Blub. > > http://weblog.raganwald.com/2006/10/are-we-blub-programmers.html > There we find: "But whe

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > It is a good thing that not every > hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be > implemented as part of the core language. Well, that's the FUD/strawman, but nothing more. Just a hobgoblin to keep the Pythonistas from straying. But you have an e

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own > as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as > the system Common Lisp already provides. Stuff like this is impossible > in other langu

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Kay) (you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 12:25:09 -0800)) ( KS> O.K. I agree with what you said about the generic function vs per KS> object dictionary dispatch. KS> But do the performance differences vanish when only builtin types and KS> functions are used to express Python algori

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: >http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html > > The examples in it are pretty easy to do in Python or Scheme, but I > think not so easy in CL. Hmm, well I guess they can be done in CL too, about the same way as in Scheme, but I'd say you

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > > David Lees wrote: > Those raving about > Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about > what they are talking. Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp is also accomplished wit

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"tmh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've been writing code for engineering solutions for 15 years in > various languages. I've gained more insight into coding in the last 6 > months then in the previous 15 years. Since lisp allows you to employ > any and every programming technique, it actually req

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > Why is that a difficulty? Like Guido, I think that's an ADVANTAGE. > > > "Programmable syntax is not in Python's future -- or at least it's not > > for Python 3000. The problem IMO is that everybody will abuse it to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Wolfram Fenske" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > with a couple of macros. I. e. if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its > object system, I could write my own as a library and it would be just > as powerful and just as easy to use as the system Common Lisp already > provides. Stuff like this is impossi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Not sure I understand why, unless you mean folks were raving about > Lisp in the 60s. Today's raving is about a much different language, > though the core elegance remains, and is as much about the contrast > with other languages as it is about the pleasure

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

tmh wrote: > Time for some more wine. ...and then just cut and paste the snipped bit into: http://wiki.alu.org/The_Road_to_Lisp_Survey ...if you are not there already. The survey questions are optional and what you wrote is perfect as is. Tough call on what goes in: http://wiki.alu

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:14:44 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> There is (IMO) some truth to that, but the flavor of Python >> programming is not that much like Lisp any more. Especially with >> recent Python releases (postdating that Norvig article) using iterator >> and generator objects (basic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > >> >>Aahz wrote: >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >>>Mark Tarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a newbie. Its clearer than ML whic

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

This is from the perspective of an aerospace engineer who passed through python several years ago on the way to lisp. Futhermore, this is a 2 glass of wine response. Nota Bene: All references to lisp in this response imply common lisp. Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

I was the one mentioning triple-quotes because it was one of the few Python features i could think of that was better than Lisps. > For me python is 'strong OOP' scripting language in first place. > Inheritance, generalization and every kind of abstractions togeteher > with clean and simple syntax

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > > >>André Thieme wrote: >> >> >>>On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python, >>>or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without >>>changing the sources of Python itself.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > > Aahz wrote: >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Mark Tarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a >>>newbie. Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically. But I >>>d

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

David Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... >> Mark Tarver wrote: >>> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >>> think that one has over the other? >> (Common) Lisp is the only industri

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

David Lees wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... >> >> Mark Tarver wrote: >> >>> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >>> think that one has over the other? >> >> >> (Common) Lisp is the only industrial st

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote: > André Thieme wrote: > >> On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python, >> or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without >> changing the sources of Python itself. > > Actually, an even bigger diff

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:50:01 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote: > (message (Hello 'Istvan) > (you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 06:11:20 -0800)) > ( > > ??>> seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp > ??>> with a worse performance. > > IA> or maybe it shows that Lisp is an obfus

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Kaz Kylheku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A > > modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious > > Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas. > > What are some of their names, and what ideas are they wo

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > > Mark Tarver wrote: >> How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >> think that one has over the other? > > (Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure > com

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

3Paul Rubin writes: > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A Indeed. All the excitement nowadays is centered around youngster interpreted languages that support type-edit-run development only and are controlled by a single person. Standardized,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A > modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious > Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas. What are some of their names, and what ideas are they working on? Also, who are the less

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > However, it is nice to work > with friends, who know Python and not Lisp.) It would be nicer a friendship if you taught them Lisp... -- __Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/ In a World without Walls and Fences, who needs Windows an

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 8 dic, 23:00, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > semantics. More importantly, even if I grant you that it's not trivial > (which I'm happy to so stipulate) my point was that YOU COULD do this > if YOU wanted, whereas in Python, YOU COULD NOT unless GUIDO wanted. > QED. Not true.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

What are you? A pointy haired boss? - s Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > Alex Mizrahi wrote: > > > hell no, lisp's syntax is much easier than python's since it's > > homogenous > > Can you give an example? I cannot imagine how homogenity always > results in easiness. > > > (and certainly lisp was inv

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote: > How do you compare Python to Lisp? A little bit OT but I can not resist it. What always impressed me with Lisp is that LOGO (any one remembers) is Lisp based yet designed to teach kids programming. I do not know Lisp but used to program a bit in LOGO - everything was so na

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob Warnock) writes: > Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays > completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!! Hmm. I haven't used Lisp in a while and no longer find it so readable. Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these day

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: +--- | Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > This is a silly claim. What observational experience are you talking | > about? Lisp is delightfully readable. In fact, I find it more | > readable than any other language. Why do you thi

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is a silly claim. What observational experience are you talking > about? Lisp is delightfully readable. In fact, I find it more > readable than any other language. Why do you think that is? Could it > be because I use Lisp on a daily basis? Could

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > First off, it probably would be Lisp, but this is a mere issue of > semantics. More importantly, even if I grant you that it's not trivial > (which I'm happy to so stipulate) my point was that YOU COULD do this > if YOU wanted, How? -- http://mai

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > I would say that your statement about Lisp syntax is wrong. Not that it > is technically inaccurate, but that it completely misses the point, so > much so that it is wrong to say it. One of the key goals of Python is > readability, and while it is indeed easy t

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

> Yeah, Lisp macros are Turing-complete and you could basically > implement a coroutine-supporting compiler out of macros and do all of > the above, but the target language wouldn't be Lisp any more. First off, it probably would be Lisp, but this is a mere issue of semantics. More importantly, eve

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, okay, Scheme [same thing (to me), although I realize that they > aren't, quite -- and CWCC is one place where they aren't!] But I don't > follow why you can't come very close by appropriate macrification of > closures. You have to be able to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > Huh? Are you saying Lisp systems never release new versions? And you He's pretty clearly not saying that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

> ... you can't implement Python generators as Lisp macros in any reasonable > way. You could do them in Scheme using call-with-current-continuation > but Lisp doesn't have that. Well, okay, Scheme [same thing (to me), although I realize that they aren't, quite -- and CWCC is one place where they

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... [snip] > What Python has is stupid slogans > ("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite > community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these > stupid slogns. IOW, you p

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Sorry, I missed something here. Why do you need a release to have these > sorts of things? Can't you just expand the language via macros to > create whatever facility of this sort you need... Oh, sorry. You CAN'T > expand the language Too bad. I guess waiting for Guido to f

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > There is (IMO) some truth to that, but the flavor of Python > > programming is not that much like Lisp any more. Especially with > > recent Python releases (postdating that Norvig article) using iterator > > and generator objects (basically delay

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > Sorry, I missed something here. Why do you need a release to have these > sorts of things? Can't you just expand the language via macros to > create whatever facility of this sort you need... Oh, sorry. You CAN'T > expand the language Too bad. I guess waiting for Guido to f

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

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 Im myself python programmer with C,C++,Java

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: > "Mark Tarver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis > > > > http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html > > > > seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp > > with a worse performance. The only substantial a

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote: > > Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis > > http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html > > seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp > with a worse performance. I'm quite interested in Lisp, at least from the perspective of seeing how i

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Mark Tarver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis > > http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html > > seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp > with a worse performance. The only substantial advantage I can see is > that G

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

> I heard it's scheduled right after strong AI and before time > travel... I think that time travel predated strong AI, although I'm not sure since it's a little hard to pin down the time coordinates of time travel (probably The Time Machine will do > A quick look at > http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.h

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: > George Sakkis wrote: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > >>Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... > >> > >>Mark Tarver wrote: > >> > >>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > >>>think that one has over the other? > >> > >>(Common

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. >> >> M

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

George Sakkis wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too... >> >>Mark Tarver wrote: >> >>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you >>>think that one has over the other? >> >>(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strengt

<    2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >