On Jul 19, 4:29 pm, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com> wrote: > Carl Banks wrote: > > On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 <fft1...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss <f...@frank-buss.de> wrote: > > >>> E.g. the number system: In many Lisp > >>> implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python > >>> 2.6 > >>> "2 / 3" results in "0". Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now > >>> it returns "0.6666666666", which will result in lots of fun for porting > >>> applications written for Python <= 2.6. > >> How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in > >> the market place despite starting 40 years later. > > > There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original > > thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good > > job discussing the issue. > > > I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy > > with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL). > > > Carl Banks > > This is an incredibly important discussion
It might be an important question but a discussion on Usenet about it is utterly useless. > and is much weaker because > it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. In the same way that a movie is weaker because the director edited out the bad scenes. > In fact, > picking a computer language is the most important discussion in > Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope > we can keep this thread going for a few months. Please feel free to extend this flame-war along for a few months on comp.lang.lisp. Not here. Carl Banks -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
