Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Mark Wilson]

On Sunday, October 12, 2003, at 06:56 PM, Alex Martelli wrote:

> Mark Wilson wrote:
>    ...
>> 3. Python's syntax is one of the worst features of the language and
>
> Ha.

How cogent.

>
>> should not be adopted by Lisp and Scheme.
>
> Obviously not, as it would not fit in with all the rest of their 
> features.

That idea was the point of the post that started this thread/

>
>> Joe Marshall's analysis is establishes this. There have been no
>
> "is establishes"?  Is that a new variant on "all your bases are belong
> to us"?

Typographical error.

>
>> responses to Joe Marshall's analysis that successfully refute his
>> analysis.
>
> I guess I haven't been posting ENOUGH on this thread -- I don't
> recall the "is establishes" analysis in question, just the usual FUD
> about "copy and paste errors" and other variants on whitespace-
> eating nanoviruses -- I tore a few to shreds, but it was almost
> incidental to all the rest of the volume.

Check on the responses from Joe Marshall (who also has an email account 
called prunesquallor, or something like that. The only person to engage 
his arguments in this thread was the original poster. I would find it 
enlightening to read a cogent response to his analysis, although I 
doubt that one can in fact be maintained.

>
>> 4. The productivity of the prolific posters must have precipitously
>> phaded.
>
> True in my case -- the amount of FUD and insults posted and
> demanding response being so high -- as seen above, even so I
> may not have noticed all of the "is establishes" alleged ``analyses''
> which sufficiently clueless readers (and you seem to be successfully
> posing as one) may think "irrefutable" unless one tediously, over
> and over, cuts them to confetti-size shreds and throws back
> into their proponents' faces.

The above is really uncalled for and beneath a person of your purported 
stature. It makes me wonder if I was wrong to think highly of you. 
Confronting Lisp may have had a deleterious effect on your thinking. As 
to me being clueless, that may be true, although I have my doubts. 
Clear cogent arguments advancing your views might provide me with a 
clue.

> I guess I'm just about ready to drop
> off this interminable thread, except presumably for whatever
> further dismantling of insults, FUD and disinformation I just
> can't resist.

Please resist.

>
>
>> 5. Use Ruby, be happy.
>
> I earnestly hope you'll start a new cross-thread between c.l.lisp and
> c.l.ruby about first-class functions, macros, case sensitivity, regular
> expressions as inherently embedded in the language, and whatever
> else can most enflame them -- please leave c.l.ruby out of it, tx.

I have nothing against Lisp or Scheme (I'm learning both). I have 
nothing against Ruby either (Ruby is my favorite language and the first 
one I started learning). It has the advantage of not considering other 
programming languages a waste of time. I have never heard a Ruby 
programmer complain about others "wasting" their efforts on other 
programming languages. I have heard such talk from Python people. So 
what is it with the Python people?

> Alex

Regards,

Mark Wilson