merits of Lisp vs Python

[Paddy]

On Dec 11, 2:17 pm, Bill Atkins <atk... at rpi.edu> wrote:
> "Paddy" <paddy3... at netscape.net> writes:
> > JShra... at gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > Python has to rely more on using the right algorithm...
>
> >> This sound familiar: "Macros are dangerous!"
> > Yes. I changed my opinion on advocating Python having macros in one
> > of our long threads on the subject. Maintainance counts.Yes, it does, but that should take you to exactly the opposite
> conclusion.
I won't duplicate the arguments against macros made elsewhere in the
thread.
>
> >> "Compilers make you lazy."
> > This is new to me. In fact, for the compiled languages available to me.
> > Using them *first* would be the difficult choice.These are not real sentences, but if you're saying that compiled
> languages make programming more difficult, then you're simply using
> the wrong compiled languages.  Lisp is a dynamic language that also
> supports compilation to native code.
Lisp was not a compiled language available to me, and even after my use
of Cadence Skill, I would not consider Lisp for writing an extension
unless Lisp had a library close to what I wanted, and there was a good
way to link
Python to the compiled Lisp code.
>
> > Unlike Lisp, Python does not have a ubiquitous compiler. It is
> > therefore
> > made to interface nicely with compiled languages. Other compiledWhat on earth does this mean?  You're saying that because Python
> doesn't have a compiler, it can interface more easily to compiled
> languages?  That's nonsense.
No. I am saying that *because* it does not have a compiler, it has been
*made to* integrate nicely with compiled languages; and further, I am
saying that because some compiled language package maintainers see the
advantages of using dynamic languages, they support Python integration.

>
> Further, most Lisp implementations support an interface to C that
> doesn't require you to write and compile C code in order to use C
> extensions in Lisp.  Can Python do the same more "nicely" than Lisp?
Python does the same. It might well be nicer but I do not know how Lisp
does this.
    http://docs.python.org/dev/lib/module-ctypes.html
    http://www.boost.org/libs/python/doc/
    http://www.python.org/pypi/pyobjc/1.3.5
(The last is used within Apple for some aspects of development).
The above list is not exhaustive
>
> > language users see the need for dynamic interpreted languages like
> > Python and maintain links Python such as the Boost Python C++
> > wrapper. IronPython for .NET, Jython for Java.
> > Lisp is its own interpreter and compiler, which should be a great
> > advantage, but only if you don't make the mistake of ignoring the
> > wealth of code out there that is written in other languages.
> Um.
Yep.

- Paddy.