[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
> - Lisp is hard to learn (because of all those parenthesis)
I cannot understand why. It is like if you claim that packaging things
in boxes is difficult to learn.
HTML and XML have more brackets than LISP (usually double) for
structuring data and everyone has learn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
> Juan R. wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
> > > - Lisp is hard to learn (because of all those parenthesis)
> >
> > I cannot understand why. It is like if you claim that packaging things
> > in boxes is difficult to l
Kay Schluehr ha escrito:
> Note also that a homogenous syntax is not that important when
> analyzing parse trees ( on the contrary, the more different structures
> the better ) but when synthesizing new ones by fitting different
> fragments of them together.
Interesting, could you provide some il
Harry George ha escrito:
> Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
> (for any reason) can look quite impressive. I've see data suggesting
> Ruby is replacing Perl and maybe Java. But I've yet to see data which
> shows people dropping Python and moving to Ruby. Where do
Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> You missed it? Google fight:
>
>http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Python&word2=Ruby
>
> Python wins, 74 to 69.3. And there is no Monty Ruby to help.
>
> ken
Nice animation!
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Ken+Tilton&word2=Mon
Rob Thorpe ha escrito:
> Juan R. wrote:
> > Ken Tilton ha escrito:
> > > You missed it? Google fight:
> > >
> > >http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Python&word2=Ruby
> > >
> > > Python wins, 74 to 69.3. An
Kay Schluehr ha escrito:
> Juan R. wrote:
>
> > Kay Schluehr ha escrito:
> > > Note also that a homogenous syntax is not that important when
> > > analyzing parse trees ( on the contrary, the more different structures
> > > the better ) but when syn
Kaz Kylheku ha escrito:
> Kay Schluehr wrote:
> > Juan R. wrote:
> > > A bit ambiguous my reading. What is not feasible in general? Achieving
> > > compositionality?
> >
> > Given two languages L1 = (G1,T1), L2 = (G2, T2 ) where G1, G2 are
> > gr
greg ha escrito:
> From another angle, think about what a hypothetical
> Python-to-Lisp translator would have to do. It couldn't
> just translate "a + b" into "(+ a b)". It would have
> to be something like "(*python-add* a b)" where
> *python-add* is some support function doing all the
> dynami
Kay Schluehr wrote:
>
> You mean a universal language adapter? I guess this is always possible
> using alpha conversion but I don't believe this leads to theoretical or
> practical interesting solutions but is just a limit concept.
Not familiarized with you terminology. I think that i would call t
greg ha escrito:
> Juan R. wrote:
>
> > I see no dinamism on your example, just static overloading.
>
> There's nothing static about it:
>
>q = raw_input()
>if q == "A":
> a = 1
> b = 2
>else:
> a = "x&
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ha escrito:
> FWIW, Python documentation consistently uses the jargon:
>
> () parentheses
> {} braces
> [] brackets
>
> That matches North American conventions, but occasionally confuses an
> international audience (for example, the English call parentheses
> "bracke
greg ha escrito:
> I don't know about the other Pythonistas in this
> discussion, but personally I do have experience with
> Lisp, and I understand what you're saying. I have
> nothing against Lisp parentheses, I just don't agree
> that the Lisp way is superior to the Python way in
> all respects,
Raffael Cavallaro ha escrito:
> This lock-in to
> a particular paradigm, however powerful, is what makes any such
> language strictly less expressive than one with syntactic abstraction
> over a uniform syntax.
Right, but it would be also remarked that there is not reason to
ignoring the developme
Using LISP-like syntax for everything would be so stupid as using
quantum mechanics for billiards.
Claiming that LISP parens are Stupid, Superfluous, or Silly just
because you do not need them in your limited field of discourse, would
be so stupid as those people thinking that just because they us
Fuzzyman ha escrito:
> Perhaps only with the addendum that although 'Lisp roolz', no-one uses
> for anything of relevance anymore and it is continuing it's geriatric
> decline into obscurity. ;-)
I do not think that i cannot agree with the contrary of this but i do
not think the contrary neither.
16 matches
Mail list logo
