Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Alex Martelli]

Matthias wrote:
   ...
> In the context of programming languages I find studies from Lutz
> Prechtel <http://www.ipd.uka.de/~prechelt/Biblio/> or Erann Gat's

Yes, Lutz has been quoted several times on this thread -- and, of course,
his studies have been impugned just as many times as they've been
quoted, anytime somebody did not like any of their implications.

> truth".  But scientifically examining the act of producing software
> should be possible (within limits) if one tries and has enough
> funding. ;-)

"shud" is a 4-letter word;-).  As this huge thread makes abundantly
clear, social and political considerations, not technical ones, dominate
most discussions of this ilk.  It's just like with, say, recreational drugs:
a study appears to show ecstasy can damage the brain, prohibitionists
jump on it with glee and proclaim it the most crucial scientific result of 
all times; months later the authors shamefacedly retract the study,
after they and many others had uselessly tried to reproduce its findings, as 
they discovered their drug samples had been mis-labeled so they had in
fact been studying a _different_ substance by mistake -- and the 
prohibitionists poo-poo the study's retraction as changing nothing of any 
importance whatsoever.  Who'll try to reproduce the findings of such long
and expensive studies of "the act of producing software" -- and will they 
make any real difference, or just be used as argument fodder who people who 
already know what they _want_ to believe?  Remember the famous 
Microsoft-financed benchmarks of Linux vs NT, for example...?-)

I may feel a bit pessimistic at this point, but after the huge amount of 
time devoted to this thread and the tiny ROI, I think that's justified!-)


Alex