Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

This is not a response to any particular post, but rather to the general argument that macros are not as useful as we Lispers claim. Here is a fairly complete GUI RSS reader in 90 lines of Lisp (the GUI code itself is 90 lines, but it makes use of some RSS reading/writing code I had laying around

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any >> reason you couldn't >> >> (poke destination (peek source)) > > That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing > in Lisp if y

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: >> In fact, all previously correct programs continue to work as before, >> and in addition, some hitherto incorrect programs become correct. >> That's an increase in power: new programs are possible without losing >> the old ones. > > There's more to p

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > André Thieme wrote: >> (aif (timeConsumingCalculation) >> (use it)) > > I think the answer is that you just wouldn't do > that in Python at all. Having magic variables > spring into existence in your local namespace > as a side effect of calling something i

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ken Tilton wrote: > >> McCarthy: "Is code also data in Python?" >> Norvig: "No." > > I don't think that was the right answer. He should have > said "Yes", and then shown McCarthy eval() and exec. > > Code isn't quite as *convenient* to work with as data > in Pyth

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

I V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:18:07 -0500, Bill Atkins wrote: >> We're not counting lines here, you goon. We're talking about how >> expressive constructs are and how closely they match your concept of >> what you want to do. T

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > Pascal Costanza <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> May you have tried the wrong Lisp dialects so far: >> >> (loop for i from 2 to 10 by 2 >>do (print i)) > > The loop language is so complicated and confusing that I never > bothered trying to lea

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>>Having edited both Lisp and Python code fairly >>>extensively, >> >> How extensively? > > Enough to know what I'm talking about. Tens > of thousands of lines of Lisp and Scheme, and > hundreds of thousands of lines of Python, I > would estimate. > > Seeing as yo

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> A compiler shifts a lot of decisions that an >> interpreter would have to make at runtime to compile-time. There is >> no reason a dynamic language can't enjoy this efficiency. > > I'm not saying that it's impossible to compile > Python, only that's there's a l

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > When moving a set of statements in Python, you > are usually selecting a set of complete lines, > cutting them out and then pasting them in > between two other lines somewhere else. You're missing Ken's point, which is that in Lisp an s-expression represents a s

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

greg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> compilers are GREATLY facilitated by having a >> macro facility because (at first blush) all you need to do is to >> macro-expand down to something you know how to turn into code. > > There's no way you could compile Python to efficien

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > Python has to rely more on using the right algorithm... >> >> This sound familiar: "Macros are dangerous!" > Yes. I changed my opinion on advocating Python having macros in one > of our long threads on the subject. Maintainance

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Or (defmethod name :after ..)? > > I don't even know what that means. And yet you continue to post as if you know Common Lisp... -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 17:01:15 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote: > >>> How's this a good thing? I don't need a Python environment to grok >>> Python code. >> >> How would that be a bad thing? Do you do a lot of programming without a >> Python environment. But I

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Paddy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Fast. Very fast! You hit it on the head. Interpreted langauges were the efficiency breakthrough we've all been waiting for. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin <http://[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Lest anyone interpret that list as exhaustive: http://www.cl-user.net/ > > What have you got for concurrency? How would you write a > multi-threaded web server in Lisp? Mu

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Carl Banks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> You're right, in part: My implicitly linking Python's pros or cons with >> its stupid marketing hype is, I think, an ad hominem argument. > > Ahem. Calling Python programmers "flies". For what it's worth, I don't think this was called for, either. > W

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > worried about the future of Lisp libraries. We already have some: > > - CL-PPCRE, a pure-Lisp regular expression package that is faster than Perl's > - Hunchentoot, a complete web server and web development framework >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Macros are not a substitute for libraries, nor are libraries a >> substitute for macros. Having macros lets you build more powerful and >> more expressive libraries. >> > And not having them helps you build less powerful and expressive > libraries? If

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: >> Are any of these not subjective? > > Objectivity is in the eye of the beholder. Well, for example, "Lisp uses a fully-parenthesized notation for writing programs" and "Python has si

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "every corner of the language"? Please. Why are you so post-happy > when it's quite obvious that you don't know enough about Lisp to > attack it? In addition to macros that define classes or methods, a common macro

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With Lisp macros, even that isn't guaranteed. Now, if Lispers would say > "Oh yes, macros give you great power, and with great power comes great > responsibility. Be careful." then, no doubt, we'd take you guys more > seriously. But we don't hear that

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > There is just not that much boilerplate in Python code, so there's > not so much need to hide it. Well, of course there is. There are always going to be patterns in the code you write that could be collapsed. Language has nothing to do with it; Li

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about > computer science? "Can you imagine if carpenters were like computer scientists? Some of them would argue that it's not necessary to own a hammer because the butt of a screwdri

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"mystilleef" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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. >> >

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote: > >> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own >> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as >> the system Common Lisp already provid

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Steven D'Aprano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I've read all the arguments against significant indents/whitespace, or > in favour of braces, and while there are a few minor good points they > make, a few edge cases where Python's significant indentation is > sub-optimal, overall I believe that the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

3Paul Rubin writes: > Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A Indeed. All the excitement nowadays is centered around youngster interpreted languages that support type-edit-run development only and are controlled by a single person. Standardized,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: > I would say that your statement about Lisp syntax is wrong. Not that it > is technically inaccurate, but that it completely misses the point, so > much so that it is wrong to say it. One of the key goals of Python is > readability, and while it is indeed easy t

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin writes: > Huh? Are you saying Lisp systems never release new versions? And you He's pretty clearly not saying that. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

"Mark Tarver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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 What was the reason

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bjoern Schliessmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think you acknowledged that the syntax is different and not > borrowed? Um, so does that mean that Python couldn't have borrowed other features? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: John Bokma harassment

John Bokma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If Xah posts to just one group, on topic, the problem is gone. But Xah > is spamvertizing his website, and hence posts to 5 groups (since I guess > that's a limit GG sets, not Xah), so he doesn't care that a post on > whitespace in Python ends up in a group

Re: John Bokma harassment

John Bokma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Ben Bullock wrote: >>> "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust, please write to my web hosting prov

Re: John Bokma harassment

Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > C'mon, John Bokma (and everyone else dumb enough to crosspost their > shushing to every group on the crosspost list -- why do they do that? > So Xah will hear them six times? No, they want everyone to see how > witty they are when they tell Xah off. Now /th

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Alex Martelli wrote: >> Steve R. Hastings <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>... >> > > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not >> > > scale. Nor will Python. >> > >> > This is a curious statement, given that Python is famous for scaling well.

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

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> [trimmed groups] >> >> Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> yes, but do not feel bad, everyone gets confused by the /analogy/ to >>

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

Alexander Schmolck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [trimmed groups] > > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> yes, but do not feel bad, everyone gets confused by the /analogy/ to >> spreadsheets into thinking Cells /is/ a spreadsheet. In fact, for a brief >> period I swore off the analogy beca

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

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > There are still more! _On Lisp_ has a lot of interesting ones, like > an embedded Prolog interpreter and compiler: > > (<-- (father billsr billjr)) > (?- (father billsr ?)) > > ? = billjr Actually, these migh

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >> >>> Bill Atkins wrote: >>>> Buh? The project doesn't have to be late for Brooks's law to hold; >>>> adding programmers, so goes Brooks reasoning, will alwa

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

"Chris Uppal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: > >> But why should I have to worry about any of this? Why can't I do: >> >> (with-indentation (pdf (+ (indentation pdf) 4)) >> (out-header) >> (out-facts)) >&g

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: >> Buh? The project doesn't have to be late for Brooks's law to hold; >> adding programmers, so goes Brooks reasoning, will always increase the >> time required to complete the project because of various communicatio

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

"Serge Orlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: >> "Serge Orlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > Ken Tilton wrote: >> >> It is vastly more disappointing that an alleged tech genius would sniff >>

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

Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Incidentally, is this supposed to be an example of Python's supposed > "aesthetic pleasantness"? I find it a little hideous, even giving you > the benefit of the doubt and pretending there are newlines between > each

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

"Serge Orlov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ken Tilton wrote: >> It is vastly more disappointing that an alleged tech genius would sniff >> at the chance to take undeserved credit for PyCells, something probably >> better than a similar project on which Adobe (your superiors at >> software, right?

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> Believe it or not, _you_ got it wrong. > > Acknowledged: Common Lisp is even MORE insane (note that the quote > "INSANELY extensible" is from Tilton) than I believ

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

I V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Sat, 06 May 2006 21:19:58 -0400, Bill Atkins wrote: >> There are also cases where a function is so trivial that the simplest >> way to describe it is with its source code, where giving it a name and >> putting it at the begi

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Yes, we are, because the debate about why it's better for Python (as a > language used in real-world production systems, *SCALABLE* to extremely > large-scale ones) to *NOT* be insanely extensible and mutable is a > separate one -- Python's uniformity of

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> > >> > Read again what I wrote: I very specifically said "ordinary >> > *single-character* identifier" (as opposed to "one of many characters &

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> True but circular, because my very point is that () was a great design >> choice in that it made macros possible and they made CL almost >> infinitely extensible, while indentation-sensitivity was a mist

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Bill Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> > ``allow ( as an ordinary single-character identifier'' as for the >> > unneded feature ``allow unnamed functions with all the flexibility of >> > name

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> Looks like dictionaries are no match for the ambiguity of natural >> language. :) Let me try again: it is Python itself that cannot scale, as >> in gain "new power and capability", and at least in the ca

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

"Martin P. Hellwig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bill Atkins wrote: > >> >> How do you define scalability? >> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Ascalability&btnG=Google+Search > > ;-) > > -- > mph OK, my real quest

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

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) writes: > Ken Tilton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> > Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously* >> > large scale systems, like my employer (and supplier of your free mail >... >> > Obviously will not scale. Never. >> >

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

"Kay Schluehr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And then the 12th vanished Lisper returns and Lispers are not > suppressed anymore and won't be loosers forever. The world will be The mark of a true loser is the inability to spell 'loser.' Zing! > them as zealots, equipped with the character of sui

Re:

John Bokma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Isn't it crazy that one person is allowed to create such a huge mess > everytime he posts? Isn't it crazy that one person willfully creates such a mess every time Xah posts? Shush! -- This is a song that took me ten years to live and two years to writ