If you want X, you know where to find it (was Re: do...until wisdom needed...)

[Douglas Alan]

"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> writes:

> "Douglas Alan" <nessus at mit.edu> wrote in message

> > > Does this mean with 40+ years of development, Lisp does not have
> > > features of some modern language, in that it isn't widely
> > > used, not tuned, etc.?

> > No one ever did a version of Lisp that was highly tuned for scripting.

> http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html doesn't count...?
> [It's Scheme, but we've already established that you do consider
> that a version of LISP].

Beats me.  I looked at it a few years ago and it was incomplete and
way too slow to start up, just like the Scheme Shell.  Perhaps it has
improved since then, but I doubt it has caught up to Python, since
Python is a quickly moving target, due in no small part to its huge
library base.  If someone is willing to convince me otherwise,
however, I might switch.  I'm always open to using the best tool that
is available, rather than being dogmatic about one particular tool.

> >    set x = 3

> > gets tranlated into

> >    try:
> >      x
> >      x = 3
> >    except NameError:

> 
> How wonderful.  And
>     set x = y + z
> will no doubt get translated into Something Totally Different
> to avoid erroneously raising a VariableNotBound for 'x' when
> the problem is actually that y and/or z give NameError's or
> such an error bubbles up from y's __add__ or ...

You know, Mr. Martelli, I'm not 'tupid.  It was an *illustrative*
example, not a reference manual.  For the purposes of illustration,
the code I presented was fine.  I know perfectly well how to write
robust macros, having written many of them in days gone by.  And you
know what?  They worked and were bug-free.

> Us humble mortals would of course use a try/except/else instead,
> totally nullyfying this problem (indeed, that IS just the kind
> of thing the else clause on the try statement is there for), but
> I guess this minute attention to such trifling details as doing
> things right is exactly what makes us unworthy of grokking the
> Tao of Python Macros (I mean, just imagine taking the trouble to
> learn a language thoroughly and using it accurately before one
> starts to advocate changing and complexifying it -- how TACKY!).

All you're convincing me of is that you are an asshole who is more
concerned with trying to humilliate other people than trying to have
any sort of intelligent conversation.  Never mind that I have spoken
in public, giving free Python tutorials and that I have relentlessly
evangelized Python as far and wide as I have been able to.  I've put
my time and effort where my mouth is.  Because I have a somewhat
different slant on things than you do, you would try to make me feel
that I'm not part of the Python community.  In doing so, you do
nothing more than alienate someone who is *very* passionate about
programming languages, programming language design, and Python in
particular.

Why don't you tell your theory that anyone who thinks an extensible
syntax might be a useful feature doesn't understand the
"wellenbrofferpoftenbuft" of Python to Guido, since I saw him muse in
this very newsgroup several years ago on how an extensible syntax
might be a nice feature .  I take it from what you say that Guido
doesn't understand the "wellnenstoflebuft" of Python either.

You are not a good force for the Python community, Mr. Martelli.  You
are an antagonistic fool.  Your hypothetical army of monkeys sitting
at typewriters would better serve the community.

|>oug