merits of Lisp vs Python

[hg]

Bill Atkins wrote:

> Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
>>
>>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
>>> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
>>> the system Common Lisp already provides.  Stuff like this is impossible
>>> in other languages.
>>
>> Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about
>> computer science?
> 
> Of course, but you have to realize that Turing-completeness is a
> useless concept when comparing languages.  C and Python are both
> Turing-complete.  So: write me some code in each that reads in a line
> of text, splits it on spaces and stores the result in an array.  Which
> would you rather write?  Which will be shorter and more easily changed
> and straightforwardly grasped in the future?
> 
> QED.  Turing-completeness is irrelevant when comparing languages.
> Take it as a given.

Lisp ? ;-)