Re: If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

[fft1976]

On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss  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 "0.66", 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.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: RUBY vs COMMON LISP

[fft1976]

On Aug 3, 1:19 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
wrote:
> fft1976  writes:
> > By the way, here is in 1 line of BF, a complete BF reader that is able
> > to
> > read all the BF syntax needed to write it:
>
> > ,+[-.,+]
>
> > Here's how to try it:
>
> > $ sudo apt-get install bf
> > $ cat > reader.bf
> > ,+[-.,+]
> > $ bf reader.bf < reader.bf
>
> > Your 150 lines don't look very impressive now, do they?
>
> > Ruby < Lisp <<< BF!
>
> I specified a syntactic reader.  Not just a reader.

It is a syntactic reader. BF's syntax is just a sequence of
characters. If you throw in illegal characters, the behavior is
"undefined". Lisp's syntax is more complicated: it's a tree of
identifiers (in its idealized form; of course, Common Lisp had to fuck
it up). Ruby's and Python's syntaxes are even more complicated.

The above was to illustrate the wrongness of your argument that the
length of a self-parser determines the usefulness of the language.
Hell, I know that BF can be a little *too* awesome.

By the way, Python's syntax is much better than Ruby's. Dollar signs
in front of variables? WTF were the designers smoking? That's like
Perl! Haven't you learned your lesson?

Python's syntax might even be better than Lisp's, but it's certainly
harder to parse.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: RUBY vs COMMON LISP

[fft1976]

On Aug 3, 8:02 pm, Carl Banks  wrote:
> On Aug 3, 7:51 pm, fft1976  wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 3, 1:19 am, p...@informatimago.com (Pascal J. Bourguignon)
> > wrote:
>
> > > fft1976  writes:
> > > > By the way, here is in 1 line of BF, a complete BF reader that is able
> > > > to
> > > > read all the BF syntax needed to write it:
>
> > > > ,+[-.,+]
>
> > > > Here's how to try it:
>
> > > > $ sudo apt-get install bf
> > > > $ cat > reader.bf
> > > > ,+[-.,+]
> > > > $ bf reader.bf < reader.bf
>
> > > > Your 150 lines don't look very impressive now, do they?
>
> > > > Ruby < Lisp <<< BF!
>
> > > I specified a syntactic reader.  Not just a reader.
>
> > It is a syntactic reader. BF's syntax is just a sequence of
> > characters. If you throw in illegal characters, the behavior is
> > "undefined". Lisp's syntax is more complicated: it's a tree of
> > identifiers (in its idealized form; of course, Common Lisp had to fuck
> > it up). Ruby's and Python's syntaxes are even more complicated.
>
> > The above was to illustrate the wrongness of your argument that the
> > length of a self-parser determines the usefulness of the language.
> > Hell, I know that BF can be a little *too* awesome.
>
> > By the way, Python's syntax is much better than Ruby's. Dollar signs
> > in front of variables? WTF were the designers smoking? That's like
> > Perl! Haven't you learned your lesson?
>
> > Python's syntax might even be better than Lisp's, but it's certainly
> > harder to parse.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Go away, troll.
>
> [This is cross-posted; I recommend that no one else follow up.]
>
> Carl Banks

Lispers were having fun badmouthing other languages for no good
reason:

"""
Don't you realize how ugly Ruby syntax is?

Here is in 150 lines of lisp, a simplified lisp reader that is able to
read all the lisp syntax needed to write it.

Try to parse Ruby syntax in Ruby and see how useless a language it
is.
"""

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/52dde974d504ad54

Of course you don't like it when I point out just how wrong you are.
-- 
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list