Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

2006-12-14 Thread Martin Rydstr|m
Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> outrage over my condescension and arrogance.]

Your condescension and arrogance are fairly well established, and no
longer cause much outrage, except in extraordinary circumstances.

',mr

-- 
rydis (Martin Rydström) @CD.Chalmers.SE http://www.rydis.se

[Emacs] is written in Lisp, which is the only computer language that is
beautiful.  -- Neal Stephenson, _In the Beginning was the Command Line_
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list


Re: A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda

2006-05-09 Thread Martin Rydstr|m
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes:
> Didn't want to trigger some flamewar;-), but, yes, if that was my only
> choice, I'd much rather use small, simple Scheme than huge, complicated,
> rich, powerful Common Lisp.  ((But in this case I'm biased by early
> experiences, since when I learned and used Lisp-ish languages there WAS
> no Common Lisp, while Scheme was already there, although not quite the
> same language level as today, I'm sure;-)).

If that was in the early to mid eighties, which I seem to recall you
mentioning, the Lisp dialects mostly in use were huger, more
complicated, richer and more powerful than Common Lisp in many, if not
most, respects, as far as I can tell.  Common Lisp is a (later)
augmented least common denominator of those Lisps. The really big
thing that's newer and greater in CL is CLOS and the condition system.

',mr

-- 
[Emacs] is written in Lisp, which is the only computer language that is
beautiful.  -- Neal Stephenson, _In the Beginning was the Command Line_
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list