Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Terry Reedy]

"Vijay L" <vijayl at lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1eaf81aa.0310150533.265145b9 at posting.google.com...
> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:<1cucnY9twevVdxGiU-KYhA at comcast.com>...
> > "Pascal Bourguignon" <spam at thalassa.informatimago.com> wrote in
> > message news:87ekxfmhhl.fsf at thalassa.informatimago.com...
> > >
> > > prunesquallor at comcast.net writes:
> > > > Since having the correct amount of whitespace is *vital* to
the
> > > > correct operation of a Python program, it seems that the task
of
> > > > maintaining it is made that much more difficult because it is
only
> > > > conspicuous by its absence.
> >
> > > That remembers me that when  the languages had significant
spaces,
> >  the
> > > programming was  done with forms, sheets of  physical paper
> >  preprinted
> > > with empty spaces:
> > [further idiocy snipped]
>
> I don't know why you categorize it as idiocy.

The 'it' that I snipped was an ASCII mockup of a Fortran coding sheet
or something and the implied suggestion that we Pythoneers are
Neanderthals who should write our programs on such, instead of using
Python-aware computer editors.  Very funny, not.

A month and two ago, some Lispers posted polite and intelligent
suggestions on c.l.py that Pythoneers not familiar with Lisp might
want to take a real look.  I bit and finally read the used Winston and
Horn LISP book that I bought about 10 years ago.  However, the recent
spate of garbage-dumping has lead me to question whether I should even
look at CL.  It seems that c.l.lisp would not be a friendly place to
ask questions.

> I, having no experience whatsoever with Python, find it hard to
believe that
> indentation is easy without "("s and "{"s.  (Yes, yes, I know, it
can't be so
> hard.  I've read the other posts, but I find it hard to believe
nonetheless.)

??? Don't you use indentation when writing Lisp?
It is even easier without adding redundant fences.
Learn something before 'sharing' such useless beliefs.

> In the next paragraph you ask people not to be judgmental and here
> you are doing it yourself.

I specifically suggested, and suggest, that Lispers, including you,
follow the posted suggestion of fellow Lispers that people not finally
judge the burdensomeness of a syntactic feature without actually using
it enough to experience the corresponding benefit, so one can make a
balanced judgment.  Calling a stupid insult 'idiotic' is another
matter entirely ;-)

> > What makes the comments above doubly absurd is that Lisp has as
much
> > or more need for 'significant spaces' as Python.  Compare (1,2,3)
> > versus (1 2 3).  Having the "correct amount of whitespace is
*vital*
> > to the correct operation of a" Lisp program as much as for any
other.
> > Do Lispers therefore use forms?  I suspect not ;-)
>
> I don't know what you've meant by "white-space" here.

If you look more carefully at both my paragraph and the one near the
top copied from
Mr. prunesquallor's post, you might discover that 'whitespace', a
programming term dating back 30 years old or more, occurs in a phrase
quoted from Mr. P's post.  So ask him.

> Removing white-space from (1 2 3) gives me (123).  I agree, very
different,

Which is exactly my point.  Thank you for agreeing.  This supports the
main point of my post, which is that attacking Python for having
critical whitespace is logically also an attack on Lisp for the same
reason.

>but noone knowing the language would consciously do this, not even a
newbie.

Ditto for Python newbies and removing commas or whitespace where
needed.

...
> In Lisp, apart from the whitespace-where-required, whitespace is
> insignificant.  You can write (1               2               3)
> as well as (1 2 3) and get the same meaning.

And in Python, (1,       2,        3) == (1,2,3).  So what?

> So we Lispers don't need to use any forms.

Neither do we Pythoneers -- and it was idiotic to suggest otherwise.

Terry J. Reedy