merits of Lisp vs Python

[Mark Tarver]

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

Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.

Mark

[Mathias Panzenboeck]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote:

How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?
>
Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.
>
Mark
>

I do not know much about Lisp. What I know is:
Python is a imperative, object oriented dynamic language with duck typing, List is a declarative,
functional dynamic language -those two languages have different scopes.

For more Information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Object-oriented_programming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_programming_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lisp_programming_language

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Python_%28programming_language%29

[Paul Rubin]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Mark Tarver" <dr.mtarver@uko nline.co.ukwrit es:

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

<http://google.com/search?q=python +lisp&btnI=I'm+ feeling+lucky>

[Mark Tarver]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python


Paul Rubin wrote:

"Mark Tarver" <dr.mtarver@uko nline.co.ukwrit es:

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

>
<http://google.com/search?q=python +lisp&btnI=I'm+ feeling+lucky>

Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis

http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html

seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance. The only substantial advantage I can see is
that GUI, and Web libraries are standard. This confirms my suspicion
that Lisp is losing out to newbies because of its
lack of standard support for the things many people want to do.

Mark

[Fredrik Lundh]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote:

seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance.

"can be seen as, by a Lisp programmer", perhaps. it's not like anybody set out
to make a Lisp-with-other-syntax but "failed"...

</F>

[Richard Brodie]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python


"Mark Tarver" <dr.mtarver@uko nline.co.ukwrot e in message
news:1165582654 .974945.173700@ 79g2000cws.goog legroups.com...

seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance.

Performance claims are always controversial. So, Python is much slower
doing array multiplication, when you hand roll it, instead of using the
standard numerical packages available.

I see that the effbot has already responded the first part.

[Istvan Albert]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote:

seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance.

or maybe it shows that Lisp is an obfuscated version of Python with
lots of parentheses, backward logic, and complicated constructs that
run faster.

i.

[Tim Chase]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you

think that one has over the other?

Easy...
Python reads like pseudocode
Lisp reads like line-noise (much like most Perl or Ruby code)


Python makes better use of my time as a programmer because it
maps fairly closely to how I think, as well as being easy to pick
up when you've been away from the code for several months.

-tkc

[Harry George]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Mark Tarver" <dr.mtarver@uko nline.co.ukwrit es:

Paul Rubin wrote:

"Mark Tarver" <dr.mtarver@uko nline.co.ukwrit es:

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

<http://google.com/search?q=python +lisp&btnI=I'm+ feeling+lucky>

>
Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis
>

http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html

>
seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
with a worse performance. The only substantial advantage I can see is
that GUI, and Web libraries are standard. This confirms my suspicion
that Lisp is losing out to newbies because of its
lack of standard support for the things many people want to do.
>
Mark
>

It is not just a newbie thing. Even people who are reasonably fluent
in Lisp use Python for many tasks, and some make python the default
with Lisp as a special case. It would probably be fair to say that
the more you know about a variety of languages, the more you
appreciate Python.


--
Harry George
PLM Engineering Architecture

[Alex Mizrahi]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

(message (Hello 'Richard)
(you :wrote :on '(Fri, 8 Dec 2006 14:08:09 -0000))
(

??>seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp
??>with a worse performance.

RBPerformance claims are always controversial. So, Python is much slower
RBdoing array multiplication, when you hand roll it, instead of using the
RBstandard numerical packages available.

heh, do you have "standard numeric packages" for everything? maybe then
we'll make standard programs for everything -- that will obsolete "slow"
"custom scripts" and we'll just use shell to select what program we want to
run?
certainly, it's possible to write code in C and use FFI to access it, but
it's not suitable for rapid prototyping/fast development, when requirements
may change, or you're just experimenting with different methods.

it's interesting than as of bare "interprete r overhead", python is aprox
order of magnitude (10 times) slower than lisp interpreters. it's also
interesting, that python, perl, php and ruby show very similar peformance,
while lisp and scheme implementations show large improvements -- it makes me
think that there's something "pathalogic ally scripting" in their
specifications (maybe some obligatory use of strings for method dispatch?).

note that i've mentioned "lisp interpreters" above. as for lisp _compilers_,
they run lots faster than lisp interpreters.

please check http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/
to compare Python to Lisp SBCL. lisp is faster more then 10 times in many
benchmarks, and even more than 100 times faster in two benchmarks.
unfortunately there's no lisp interpreters (CLISP) in the benchmark.

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")

[Alex Mizrahi]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

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

IAwith lots of parentheses,

that make logic more explicit

IA backward logic,

??

IA and complicated constructs that run faster.

no, there are no complicted constructs -- just it's designed with 30-year
history in mind, not like "let's make another simple scripting language".

)
(With-best-regards '(Alex Mizrahi) :aka 'killer_storm)
"People who lust for the Feel of keys on their fingertips (c) Inity")

[Ken Tilton]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python



Mark Tarver wrote:

How do you compare Python to Lisp?

Lisp programmers are smarter and better looking. And better programmers.
Not sure if that is what you were after, though.

What specific advantages do you
think that one has over the other?

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=parentheses&word2=white+space

Ouch.

hth,kt

--
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

[Wade Humeniuk]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mark Tarver wrote:

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

Since the late 1950's Lisp has participated in the development of
modern (present day) programming practises. It has shaped and been
shaped by the minds of just not programmers, but people involved
in dealing with the larger impacts and possibilities.
Its been there, is here, and will continue to be there in the future.
Lisp is a human construct that is a force to be reckoned with. Its
construction reflects something very deep and fundamental about
computing. So, it depends on what you want.

What do you want?

W

[Richard Brodie]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python


"Alex Mizrahi" <udodenko@users .sourceforge.ne twrote in message
news:45797a0c$0 $49204$14726298 @news.sunsite.d k...

heh, do you have "standard numeric packages" for everything? maybe then we'll make
standard programs for everything -- that will obsolete "slow" "custom scripts" and we'll
just use shell to select what program we want to run?

No, I was observing that, faced with a matrix multiplication problem, most
sensible Python developers would do "apt-get install python-numeric" or
equivalent. Trying to do it in pure Python would be the wrong tool for the
job. If you think that's a weakness of Python compared to Lisp, then so
be it.

[Rob Thorpe]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mathias Panzenboeck wrote:

Mark Tarver wrote:

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

Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is
just a question for my general education.

Mark

>
I do not know much about Lisp. What I know is:
Python is a imperative, object oriented dynamic language with duck typing,

Yes, but Python also supports the functional style to some extent.

List is a declarative,
functional dynamic language

Lisp is only a functional language in that it support both functional
and imperative programming styles. Duck typing is almost identical to
latent typing in Lisp.
And, Common Lisp at least is object orientated.

-those two languages have different scopes.

Their scope is actually very similar. Learn about lisp and you will
soon discover their similarity.