Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Kenny Tilton]

Björn Lindberg wrote:

> "Andrew Dalke" <adalke at mindspring.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>Björn Lindberg:
>>
>>>Apart from the usual problems with micro benchmarks, there are a few
>>>things to consider regarding the LOC counts on that site:
>>
>>I wasn't the one who pointed out those micro benchmarks.  Kenny
>>Tilton pushed the idea that more concise code is better and that Lisp
>>gives the most concise code, and that Perl is much more compact
>>than Python.  He suggested I look at some comparisons, so I followed
>>his suggestion and found that 1) the Lisp code there was not more
>>succinct than Python and 2) neither was the Perl code.

You might be thinking of someone else. I remember a recent discussion 
focused on this, but IIRC all other things were equal.

All else being equal, shorter is better. But then right away things can 
get longer, since cryptic languages like APL, K, and (I gather) Perl are 
not equal in value to nice long function and data names.

As for that ridiculous study, it includes VB. VB suffers from The 4GL 
Problem. It reduces LOC by making decisions for you. But no general tool 
can successfully get the decision right for all the people all the time. 
And 4GL tools are not meant to be tailored to individual requirements. 
Where hooks even exist, one ends up in the dread situation of Fighting 
the Tool.

So leave me out of this. :)

>>Absolutely correct.  Both Alex Martellli and I tried to dissuade
>>Kenny Tilton that LOC was the best measure of succinctness and
>>appropriateness, and he objected.

All things being equal.


-- 
http://tilton-technology.com
What?! You are a newbie and you haven't answered my:
  http://alu.cliki.net/The%20Road%20to%20Lisp%20Survey