Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[David Rush]

On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 15:31:21 GMT, Doug Tolton <doug at nospam.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2003 14:22:43 GMT, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it>
>> Doug Tolton wrote:
>> ...
>>> Alex, this is pure un-mitigated non-sense.
>>
>> Why, thanks!  Nice to see that I'm getting on the nerves of _some_
>> people, too, not just having them get on mine.
>
> Yes, this discussion is frustrating.  It's deeply frustrating to hear
> someone without extensive experience with Macros arguing why they are
> so destructive.

You know I think that this thread has so far set a comp.lang.* record for 
civilitiy in the face of a massively cross-posted language comparison 
thread. I was even wondering if it was going to die a quiet death, too.

Ah well, We all knew it was too good to last. Have at it, lads!

Common Lisp is an ugly language that is impossible to understand with 
crufty semantics

Scheme is only used by ivory-tower academics and is irerelevant to real 
world programming

Python is a religion that worships at the feet of Guido vanRossum
combining the syntactic flaws of lisp with a bad case of feeping 
creaturisms taken from languages more civilized than itself

There. Is everyone pissed off now?

david rush
-- 
Taking bets on how many more messages before Godwin's law kicks in...