Switch from perl to python?

[Andrew Dalke]

gPekka Niiranen:
> If you read carefully Guido's own notes,
> he has spoken about Python's Scheme -roots himself, too.
> I like that kind of honesty over hype.

Really?  Here's some quotes of Guido's I dug up (I'm in a
history mood today).  Search Google groups for full references.

 > The distinction is not historical.  It's a conscious effort to give
 > Python's syntax enough variety to make it more readable.  Believe me,
 > if everything were a function, it would look a lot like Lisp, and
 > while that's an advantage to some, it would have made Python sink into
 > oblivion.

 > Also, the Python docs (to the extent that I wrote them)
 > *never* attribute *anything* to Scheme or Lisp.  Python comes from the
 > Algol family of languages.

 > Python does not have its
 > roots in mathematics.  If it did, it wouldn't have caught on with its
 > current audience.  It has its roots in traditional programming
 > languages (syntactically, it's in the Algol family, while
 > semantically, it's in the Lisp family -- broadly speaking).

 > I certainly like the economy of the
 > print statement.  (I'm a rabid Lisp-hater -- syntax-wise, not
 > semantics-wise! -- and excessive parentheses in syntax annoy me.

And here's a couple from Tim Peters about Guido:
 > To the extent that people see a flawed attempt at Lisp in Python,
 > it's coming from their heads, not Guido's.

 > [Douglas Alan]
 > > Not true.  Python is practically a dialect of Lisp, but with a
 > > different syntax.
 >
 > This comes as a great surprise to Guido whenever it's claimed,
 > because he's never been a Lisp programmer and seems to actively
 > dislike what he's seen of Lisp programming styles.

					Andrew
					dalke at dalkescientific.com