merits of Lisp vs Python

[Paul Rubin]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <atkinw@rpi.edu writes:

This is a silly claim. What observational experience are you talking
about? Lisp is delightfully readable. In fact, I find it more
readable than any other language. Why do you think that is? Could it
be because I use Lisp on a daily basis? Could that also explain why
Python seems more readable than Lisp to you?

Python is more readable than Lisp because it stays readable even if
you don't use it on a daily basis.

[Rob Warnock]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrote:
+---------------
| Bill Atkins <atkinw@rpi.edu writes:
| This is a silly claim. What observational experience are you talking
| about? Lisp is delightfully readable. In fact, I find it more
| readable than any other language. Why do you think that is? Could it
| be because I use Lisp on a daily basis? Could that also explain why
| Python seems more readable than Lisp to you?
|
| Python is more readable than Lisp because it stays readable even if
| you don't use it on a daily basis.
+---------------

Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays
completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!!

[That's also why I *don't* use Perl, except when forced to...]


-Rob

-----
Rob Warnock <rpw3@rpw3.or g>
627 26th Avenue <URL:http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403 (650)572-2607

[Paul Rubin]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

rpw3@rpw3.org (Rob Warnock) writes:

Weird. This is exactly why I use *Lisp* -- because it stays
completely readable even if you don't use it on a daily basis!!!

Hmm. I haven't used Lisp in a while and no longer find it so
readable.

Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.

[alf]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote:

How do you compare Python to Lisp?

A little bit OT but I can not resist it. What always impressed me with
Lisp is that LOGO (any one remembers) is Lisp based yet designed to
teach kids programming. I do not know Lisp but used to program a bit in
LOGO - everything was so natural ...

--
alfz1

[samantha]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

What are you? A pointy haired boss?

- s

Bjoern Schliessmann wrote:

Alex Mizrahi wrote:
>

hell no, lisp's syntax is much easier than python's since it's
homogenous

>
Can you give an example? I cannot imagine how homogenity always
results in easiness.
>

(and certainly lisp was invented much 30 years before
Python, so that's Python uses Lisp features)

>
I think you acknowledged that the syntax is different and not
borrowed?
>
[many parentheses]

that make logic more explicit

>
Can you give an example?
>
Regards,
>
>
Björn

Xpost cll,clp

--
BOFH excuse #166:

/pub/lunch

[Gabriel Genellina]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 8 dic, 23:00, "JShra...@gmail .com" <JShra...@gmail .comwrote:

semantics. More importantly, even if I grant you that it's not trivial
(which I'm happy to so stipulate) my point was that YOU COULD do this
if YOU wanted, whereas in Python, YOU COULD NOT unless GUIDO wanted.
QED.

Not true. You could also build closure/coroutine support in pure
python, without needing to change the interpreter. All the required
introspection mechanisms, stack analysis, etc. were there for a long
time.
In fact it was done on 2000 or earlier:

http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-announce-list/2000-October/000543.html

--
Gabriel Genellina

[Pascal Bourguignon]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

tayssir.john@go oglemail.com writes:

However, it is nice to work
with friends, who know Python and not Lisp.)

It would be nicer a friendship if you taught them Lisp...

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

In a World without Walls and Fences,
who needs Windows and Gates?

[Kaz Kylheku]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote:

Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.

What are some of their names, and what ideas are they working on?

Also, who are the less serious designers?

[Bill Atkins]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

3Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrites:

Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A

Indeed. All the excitement nowadays is centered around youngster
interpreted languages that support type-edit-run development only and
are controlled by a single person. Standardized, mature languages
with good compilers and interactive development just can't keep up
with these modern trends.

[David Lees]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

JShrager@gmail. com wrote:

Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>
Mark Tarver wrote:

>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
>think that one has over the other?

>
(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
compositionalit y and a real compiler. What Python has is stupid slogans
("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite
community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
stupid slogns. These flies are, however, quite useful because they
produce infinite numbers of random libraries, some of which end up
being useful. But consider: Tcl replaced Csh, Perl replaced Tcl, Python
is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
rapidly replacing Python. Each is closer to Lisp than the last; the
world is returning to Lisp and is dragging the flies with it.
Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring with
them their infinite number of random libraries, and then things will be
where they should have been 20 years ago, but got sidetracked by Tcl
and other line noise.
>

Hmmm. The last time I fooled around with Lisp was 1966 from the Lisp
1.5 Manual Published by MIT in cloth. It was interesting and different
from the other languages I was using, Algol 60, Basic and Macro
assembler for the GE-235 and GE-635. When I read some of the over the
top type hype by Lisp enthusiasts (like the stuff above) it feels like a
flash back to the mid 60's. Personally, I never like Lisp syntax;
Clearly some people, some fanatic judging by this thread :) think easily
in prefix. I am not one of them. Computer languages are tools and
everyone should pick the ones that they are most comfortable and
productive with.

Six years ago, when I drifted back into programming, I had to learn
about Object Oriented programming and C++. I used Python as a means to
update my programming skills (limited though they are) by 30 years or
so. It was a wonderful intro to OO and served me well. I ended up
writing all kinds of little things for work (simple HTTP servers for
load testing, ECAD hacks for the ASIC guys, even a register level chip
simulator) Even better, I find it a pleasure to write small utilities,
to prototype C code and generally do things quickly. I use it by choice
to get things done, not because it is mandated. At my current job as a
Systems Engineer for a large aerospace firm, I do not program daily, but
when I need to write a quick hack, I always use Python.

david

[Paul Rubin]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Kaz Kylheku" <kkylheku@gmail .comwrites:

Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A
modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious
Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas.

>
What are some of their names, and what ideas are they working on?

http://caml.inria.fr

http://www.haskell.org

etc.

Also, who are the less serious designers?

The ones like us who waste their time on usenet. ;-)

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 08:50:41 -0800, George Sakkis wrote:

André Thieme wrote:
>

>On the other hand can I see difficulties in adding macros to Python,
>or inventing a new object system, or adding new keywords without
>changing the sources of Python itself.

>
Actually, an even bigger difficulty is the rejection of programmable
syntax by Guido, both for the near and distant future:

Why is that a difficulty? Like Guido, I think that's an ADVANTAGE.

"Programmab le syntax is not in Python's future -- or at least it's not
for Python 3000. The problem IMO is that everybody will abuse it to
define their own language. And the problem with that is that it will
fracture the Python community because nobody can read each other's code
any more."
>
http://mail.python.org/pipermail/pyt...il/000286.html.

I couldn't have said it better myself.


--
Steven.

[Steven D'Aprano]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:50:01 +0200, Alex Mizrahi wrote:

(message (Hello 'Istvan)
(you :wrote :on '(8 Dec 2006 06:11:20 -0800))
(
>
??>seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
??>with a worse performance.
>
IAor maybe it shows that Lisp is an obfuscated version of Python
>
hell no, lisp's syntax is much easier than python's since it's homogenous

By that "logic" "BrainF*ck" should be even easier still, since it is even
more homogeneous, with even less syntax.

http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/bf/

Here's "Hello World" in Brainf*ck:

++++++++++[>+++++++>++++++ ++++>+++>+<<<<-]>++.>+.++++++ +
...+++.>++.<<++ +++++++++++++.> .+++.------.--------.>+.>.

Actually, yes, it is "easier" syntax, if by easier you mean "easier for
the compiler to parse". If you mean "easier for most human beings to
read", then Lisp is easier than Brainf*ck and Python is easier than Lisp.


--
Steven.

[Ken Tilton]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python



David Lees wrote:

JShrager@gmail. com wrote:
>

>Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>>
>Mark Tarver wrote:
>>

>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
>>think that one has over the other?

>>
>>
>(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
>compositionali ty and a real compiler. What Python has is stupid slogans
>("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite
>community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
>stupid slogns. These flies are, however, quite useful because they
>produce infinite numbers of random libraries, some of which end up
>being useful. But consider: Tcl replaced Csh, Perl replaced Tcl, Python
>is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
>rapidly replacing Python. Each is closer to Lisp than the last; the
>world is returning to Lisp and is dragging the flies with it.
>Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring with
>them their infinite number of random libraries, and then things will be
>where they should have been 20 years ago, but got sidetracked by Tcl
>and other line noise.
>>

>
Hmmm. The last time I fooled around with Lisp was 1966 from the Lisp
1.5 Manual Published by MIT in cloth. It was interesting and different
from the other languages I was using, Algol 60, Basic and Macro
assembler for the GE-235 and GE-635. When I read some of the over the
top type hype by Lisp enthusiasts (like the stuff above) it feels like a
flash back to the mid 60's.

Not sure I understand why, unless you mean folks were raving about Lisp
in the 60s. Today's raving is about a much different language, though
the core elegance remains, and is as much about the contrast with other
languages as it is about the pleasure of Lisp itself. Those raving about
Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about
what they are talking. I doubt the Pythonistas weighing in on this
thread ever got far at all with Lisp, so... should they really be
offering comparative analysis?

Personally, I never like Lisp syntax;
Clearly some people, some fanatic judging by this thread :) think easily
in prefix. I am not one of them.

Yeah, you are, you just did not use it heads down for a month. The way
to tell if you spent enough time on Lisp is to look at Lisp code. If you
see any parentheses, you have not spent enough time. They disappear in a
month.

The typical Pythonista values clean code but trembles in the face of
macros, which exist to hide boilerplate. That means the only thing
showing in any given block of code is exactly the interesting variable
and function names. Talk about readability.

Computer languages are tools and
everyone should pick the ones that they are most comfortable and
productive with.

No, languages are not interchangeable . Python is a fine language, but
Lisp is much more expressive/powerful.

>
Six years ago, when I drifted back into programming, I had to learn
about Object Oriented programming and C++. I used Python as a means to
update my programming skills (limited though they are) by 30 years or
so. It was a wonderful intro to OO and served me well. I ended up
writing all kinds of little things for work (simple HTTP servers for
load testing, ECAD hacks for the ASIC guys, even a register level chip
simulator) Even better, I find it a pleasure to write small utilities,
to prototype C code and generally do things quickly. I use it by choice
to get things done, not because it is mandated. At my current job as a
Systems Engineer for a large aerospace firm, I do not program daily, but
when I need to write a quick hack, I always use Python.

Much of Lisp's power would be lost on a non-programmer, but Lisp might
make a programmer out of a non-programmer if they had it in them. You
might have the right language for you because what Python does have is
lotsa libraries, and if you are just hacking scripts to glue together
libraries the expressiveness of Lisp is more than offset by the better
library support in Python.

ken

--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon

[Wolfram Fenske]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

David Lees <debl2NoSpam@ve rizon.netwrites :

JShrager@gmail. com wrote:

>Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>Mark Tarver wrote:

>>How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
>>think that one has over the other?

>(Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
>compositionali ty and a real compiler. What Python has is stupid slogans
>("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite
>community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
>stupid slogns. These flies are, however, quite useful because they
>produce infinite numbers of random libraries, some of which end up
>being useful. But consider: Tcl replaced Csh, Perl replaced Tcl, Python
>is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
>rapidly replacing Python. Each is closer to Lisp than the last; the
>world is returning to Lisp and is dragging the flies with it.
>Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring with
>them their infinite number of random libraries, and then things will be
>where they should have been 20 years ago, but got sidetracked by Tcl
>and other line noise.
>>

>
Hmmm. The last time I fooled around with Lisp was 1966 from the Lisp
1.5 Manual Published by MIT in cloth. It was interesting and
different from the other languages I was using, Algol 60, Basic and
Macro assembler for the GE-235 and GE-635. When I read some of the
over the top type hype by Lisp enthusiasts (like the stuff above) it
feels like a flash back to the mid 60's. Personally, I never like
Lisp syntax; Clearly some people, some fanatic judging by this thread
:) think easily in prefix. I am not one of them.

Doesn't matter. We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is
futile. :-)

But seriously, look at how features from Lisp are constantly finding
their way into mainstream programming languages and have done so for
decades (garbage colection, closures, ...). Maybe one day prefix
notation and Lisp style macros will also find their way into other
languages and then Lisp will finally take over. :-) And here's another
thing: All the interesting features that haven't originated from Lisp
(e. g. OO from Smalltalk) could in turn easily be implemented in Lisp
with a couple of macros. I. e. if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its
object system, I could write my own as a library and it would be just
as powerful and just as easy to use as the system Common Lisp already
provides. Stuff like this is impossible in other languages.

To summarize: Lispers are not fanatics. And if we appear to be then
it is simply because we recognize that Lisp truly is The Chosen
Language. [1]


Footnotes:
[1] Kidding! :-) ... or am I?

--
Wolfram Fenske

A: Yes.

>Q: Are you sure?

>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.

>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?