merits of Lisp vs Python
lojicdotcomNOSPAM at gmail.com
Thu Mar 8 00:30:53 CET 2007
John Nagle wrote:
> Neither Lisp nor Python is an "industrial strength language".
> The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro
> makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They
> care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP.
> Ask them.
> John Nagle
In your excitement to post a sweeping and inaccurate generalization (you
missed diss'ing Ruby), I think you may have missed the point of my post.
I surely wasn't trying to restart a dead thread, I just thought it was
funny that there was a similarity to a line from Princess Bride in the
thread (see relevant part below that you cut out).
If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some
serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil
purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie?
George Sakkis wrote:
> You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it
[Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]
Vizzini: HE DIDN'T FALL? INCONCEIVABLE.
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what
you think it means.
More information about the Python-list