BASIC vs Python

not [quite] more i squared ruses at users.ch
Sat Dec 18 00:30:56 CET 2004


Mike Meyer wrote:
> "not [quite] more i squared" <ruses at users.ch> writes:
> 
> 
>>Adam DePrince wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Given the hardware constraints of the early 1980s, which
>>>>language do you think should have been used instead of BASIC?
>>>
>>>Lisp
>>>Forth
>>
>>Exactly my pick
> 
> 
> Logo (my pick) has been called "Lisp without the parenthesis". It has
> the advantage of using standard algebraic notation for formulas,
> instead of operator post or pre.
> 
>         <mike

I'd rather say "Lisp ashamed of S-expressions". Well, mind you, I've nothing 
against infix notation but my experience with Logo is that in Logo's case it 
is an ugly fixture getting in the way. I say "ugly" because the real beauty of 
lisp is with manipulating code as data - and the utter simplicity with which 
this can be done in pure lisp is imo much more valuable than the (relative !!) 
simplicity of the transform from standard mathematical notation to Logo infix 
expression syntax.

Don't get me wrong, I did write non-trivial amounts of code in Logo and had 
some fun, in some implementations it is a quite usable language, but 
nevertheless its design/aesthetics angers me, like... well like Basic, or 
crippleware. Even the turtle graphics... if Guido was Papert there would be no 
"complex" type in Python. Sorry, I find it difficult to express, maybe you get 
my drift -




More information about the Python-list mailing list