merits of Lisp vs Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:

> 
> 
> Aahz wrote:
>> In article <1165598576.650860.126740 at 16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>> Mark Tarver <dr.mtarver at ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>>I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
>>>newbie.  Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically.  But I
>>>don't see where the action is in Python.   Not yet anyway.  Lisp syntax
>>>is easy to learn.  And giving up an order of magnitude is a high price
>>>to pay for using it over Lisp.
>> 
>> 
>> Speaking as someone who had been programming for more than twenty years
>> before learning Python (including a brief gander at Lisp), and also
>> referring to many years of observations of newcomers to Python: Python's
>> syntax also appeals to experienced programmers.
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> No programming language is easy to read, 

Well, you've just blown your credibility out the water with that nonsense. 


> and no Lisp programmer stopped 
> using Lisp because they had been using it for a month and just could not 
> get used to reading it.

Or, to put it another way:

"No programmer who learned Lisp ever gave up before he learned Lisp."

I wonder, how many people gave up trying to learn Lisp because the
language was too hard for them to read? Anyone like to bet that the number
was more than zero?


-- 
Steven.