merits of Lisp vs Python

[Raffael Cavallaro]

On 2006-12-16 08:21:59 -0500, Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> said:

> It never occurs to Lisp programmers that Lisp, too, might be a Blub.

Of course it does - Thats why we try ocaml and haskell etc. It's just 
that we don't see the useful features of these languages as being 
sufficiently useful to compensate for their lack of the ability to 
easily do syntactic abstractions over a uniform syntax. There's no 
question that other languages have some features that common lisp does 
not (and vice versa). Lispers just can't abide being locked into a 
particular paradigm because a language doesn't have the basic features 
(macros and uniform syntax) necessary to provide new paradigms for 
ourselves when needed or wanted.

For example, a common lisp with optional static typing on demand would 
be strictly more expressive than common lisp. But, take say, haskell; 
haskell's static typing is not optional (you can work around it, but 
you have to go out of your way to do so); haskell's pure functional 
semantics are not optional (again, workarounds possible to a limited 
extent). This requires you to conceive your problem solution (i.e., 
program) within the framework of a particular paradigm. This lock-in to 
a particular paradigm, however powerful, is what makes any such 
language strictly less expressive than one with syntactic abstraction 
over a uniform syntax.