merits of Lisp vs Python

[George Sakkis]

Ken Tilton wrote:

> George Sakkis wrote:
> > JShrager at gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >
> >>1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language
> >
> >                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it
> > means.
>
>   To me in part it means "no one can decide to take away lambda because
> they decided they should not have put it in in the first place and then
> change their mind and leave it in after I already put a few people on
> de-lambdifying our 100kloc system because..."

Funny, coming from the guy with an inclination in discovering straw man
arguments in others. Python 3.0 should be at least a year away from
now, let alone the time of discussions about lambda. If you're changing
a working system based on brainstorms and speculations about a
backwards incompatible version to appear after two years or three, I
can't feel sorry for you :)

> , and in part it means
> compilation. And it /has/ to have macros. :)

Oh, and I had the vague impression that it was somehow related to
standards about bleeding-edge technologies, such as sockets. But then,
I could be wrong :)

> Metaprogramming by definition cannot be obscure. Metaprogramming means
> programming at a higher level.

Check.

> A higher level means "more productive".

*Segfault* *core dump* *kernel panic* :)

No, it is more productive only if you (and the other 5, 10, 100 people
in your group) can understand, implement, debug, test and maintain code
in that higher level of abstraction.

The rest of the proof is therefore irrelevant ;-)

> > ...which are
> > irrelevant to the vast majority of programmers.
>
> You insult them by suggesting they cannot concieve at a higher level.
> Mebbe they could if their language aupported it. Yours does not.

Actually it does. Metaclasses, descriptors, decorators are some high
level Python concepts. Most people are productive in Python for years
without ever having to write a custom metaclass, or even know their
existence (although a library or framework they use daily might in fact
use all of the above). Ever heard of Zope ? Even though it's written in
Python, it is criticised for its steep learning curve, one main reason
being its high level of abstraction.

> >  I don't know if other lispers
> > would join you in your feeble attempt to steal a bite from Ruby's
> > current glory...
>
> Of course we would. You do not get it. The only thing you guys are
> bleating about is greater popularity. Now someone is about to eat your
> lunch popularity-wise. Live by the poll, die by the poll. And you held
> first place for like a week in language geologic time, taken down merely
> because...
>
> > (mostly thanks to the admirable marketing around the
> > overhyped Rails framework)
>
> ... a little hype came along? Wow, your fundamental advantage must have
> been about zip, and all derived from things unrelated to syntax. <gasp>

Well, for one thing we never held the first place anyway. Second, what
appears to be the big boost for Ruby today maybe its death sentence
tomorrow, ending up as a niche language for web apps, like PHP today.
With a large crowd undoubtly, but I bet most Pythonistas would prefer
lower popularity than ending up in a corner of the application
spectrum.

> , but Ruby is much closer to Python than
> > either of them is to lisp. In fact, if Python suddenly disappeared,
> > Ruby would probably be my next stop. Both Ruby and Python are high
> > level dynamic languages with an emphasis on pragmatic needs, not being
> > the language of the God(s) (see, I can bring up stupid slogans of
> > languages too).
>
> As Graham said, if some pretty good programmers are jumping up and down
> about X, mebbe you should take a look at X. Even if assholes like me
> piss you off. :)

Change that to "amuse me"; nothing better than a sense of
self-knowledge :) If you mean the same Graham that wrote
http://paulgraham.com/pypar.html, perhaps we don't disagree that much
after all :)

George