merits of Lisp vs Python

[dixkey at gmail.com]

JShrager at gmail.com wrote:
> > Talk to these guys:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyPy they have an interesting take on
>
> No, actually maybe you should talk to them since you seem to think that
> making Python run fast is dangerous, or at least unnecessary.
>

I find it amusing that most of the arguments that python-people are
making in this thread are actually the arguments that C++ and Java make
against Python. "Who needs dynamic typing?", "Who needs closures?",
"The idea of using whitespace for syntax is beyond stupid"... Now the
python guys obviouly see that that those arguments are bogus, but they
keep the same reasoning against lisp.

I switched to learning Lisp after Python and knowing Python helped me
greatly. And not only the fact that many features were already familiar
from Python (I've already known Smalltalk, Prolog and Mozart-Oz for
example, as the more weird ones, besides of course the whole array of
standard ones like FORTRAN, Pascal, C, Modula-2,C++, etc), but mostly
it was the fact that even if something looks weird and
unreadable/useless/dangerous/whatever at first sight, it might turn out
different when you get used to it. For example I started to learn
Python three times. The first two - I've read about whitespace syntax,
exclaimed "how stupid some people are" and threw the book away. The
third time I've managed to pass that barrier and found the experience
rewarding. And that was the *real* knowledge - when faced with Lisp's
parentheses I would've probably have the same reaction, but I've
remembered my experience with Python and decided to give it a try. So,
thanks to Python for making me more open to unconventional concepts and
guiding me to learning Lisp!
I still find Python a nice language and have warm feelings towards it,
although I don't think that given a choce I'd ever pick it over Lisp.