On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 02:29:56 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > > > David Lees wrote:
> Those raving about > Lisp are quite accomplished at all those other languages, and know about > what they are talking. Such a sweeping generalization. Every person who raves about Lisp is also accomplished with other languages. Yeah, right. I believe you, even if millions wouldn't. > I doubt the Pythonistas weighing in on this > thread ever got far at all with Lisp, so... should they really be > offering comparative analysis? I hit my hand with a hammer once. I didn't keep going until I was an expert in hitting-own-hand-with-hammer before deciding that hitting my hand with a hammer was not for me. Did I do the wrong thing? Should I have kept going until I was an expect at it? (Of course, writing Lisp isn't precisely like hitting one's hand with a hammer. With the hammer, the endorphins kick in eventually, and it can become quite pleasant...) >> 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 sheer arrogance of this claim is astounding. Actually, this is comp.lang.lisp. It isn't astounding at all. I don't know, maybe lisp coders actually are more intelligent than ordinary mortals, but it has been my experience that they have absolutely no grasp whatsoever of the way most (many? some?) people think. And I'm not talking about can't-walk-and-think-at-the-same-time people either, I'm talking about bright, intelligent people who, nevertheless, don't agree with lisp coders. > 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. If the parentheses are that meaningless, why do you need them? > The typical Pythonista values clean code but trembles in the face of > macros, which exist to hide boilerplate. Funny, when I write code, I try to remove boilerplate, not hide it. > That means the only thing > showing in any given block of code is exactly the interesting variable > and function names. Talk about readability. Yes. And your point is? >> Computer languages are tools and >> everyone should pick the ones that they are most comfortable and >> productive with. > > No, languages are not interchangeable. Perhaps you should consider what the term "Turing complete" implies. > Python is a fine language, but > Lisp is much more expressive/powerful. Maybe so. A bulldozer is a lot more powerful than a tack-hammer, but if somebody suggested using a bulldozer to lay carpet, I'd politely show them to the door. Sometimes more power isn't better. -- Steven. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
