merits of Lisp vs Python

[Jon Harrop]

Michael Livshin wrote:
> Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
>> Nobody seems to concerned that Haskell lacks macros.  What's up with
>> that?
> 
> Haskell is lazy, so it doesn't need macros

Outside Lisp, macros are for syntax. Evaluation semantics (e.g. lazy
evaluation) then have nothing to do with macros.

So Haskell being lazy doesn't obviate macros. You might still want to extend
the syntax of Haskell, i.e. want macros. However, this is much less
desirable than Lisp because Haskell already provides a wealth of powerful
features and related syntax (e.g. pattern matching, comprehensions). I
think this is an important point often missed by Lispers.

> lazyness has a nontrivial cost, however, both runtime and cognitive.

The main problem with lazy evaluation is unpredictable memory use.

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet