merits of Lisp vs Python

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Kirk  Sluder <kirk at nospam.jobsluder.net> writes:

> In article <1165689545.676886.289150 at j44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>  "mystilleef" <mystilleef at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> 1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter,
>> libraries do).
> ....
>> On Lisp Macros:
>> 
>> I think they are overrated, and in general cause more harm than good.
>> It's the reason I find Lisp-like programs difficult to grok, maintain
>> and extend. Cos every smart ass wants to needlessly write his own mini
>> language to the point of absolute obfuscation. Naturally, I'm supposed
>> to be awed by his mischievous cleverness.
>
> I've not seen a convincing explanation as to why imported macros 
> from some library are so much more evil than imported functions. In 
> both cases one might have to dig into documentation and/or comments 
> to understand exactly what that imported snippit is doing.

And the difference with a library function is?

(defpackage "LIBRARY" (:export "THIS-IS-A-FUNCTION"))

(library:this-is-a-function ???) ; ???

-- 
__Pascal Bourguignon__                     http://www.informatimago.com/

"This statement is false."            In Lisp: (defun Q () (eq nil (Q)))