merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

aahz at pythoncraft.com (Aahz) writes:

> I would say that your statement about Lisp syntax is wrong.  Not that it
> is technically inaccurate, but that it completely misses the point, so
> much so that it is wrong to say it.  One of the key goals of Python is
> readability, and while it is indeed easy to learn the rules for Lisp
> syntax, observational experience indicates that many people (perhaps even
> the vast majority of people) find it difficult to learn to read Lisp
> programs.

You see, this is what I meant by "controversy."  As much as I'd like
to ignore this whole discussion, I will eventually read something like
the above and feel compelled to respond, thus ensuring that the thread
continues until eventually everyone gives up and we end up....exactly
where we started. (thanks again, Mark Tarver)

This is a silly claim.  What observational experience are you talking
about?  Lisp is delightfully readable.  In fact, I find it more
readable than any other language.  Why do you think that is?  Could it
be because I use Lisp on a daily basis?  Could that also explain why
Python seems more readable than Lisp to you?

> As for your claims about speed, they are also nonsense; I doubt one
> would find an order of magnitude increase of speed for production
> programs created by a competent Lisp programmer compared to programs
> created by a competent Python programmer.

Nonsense?  Hardly.  Most Lisp implementations compile to native code,
and can take advantage of fifty years of research into making Lisp
compile into efficient code.  You are correct, though: the difference
would probably be a little more than an order of magnitude.

> Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
> dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
> programmers.  Think about it.

OK, I'm thinking about it.  What was supposed to happen?

(BTW, which millions are you talking about?  The millions that went
into the AI boom in the 1980's?)