Why aren't we all speaking LISP now?

[Andrew Kuchling]

grante at visi.com (Grant Edwards) writes:
> Why do people think Python is so Lisp-like? I just don't get

I'm reading Paul Graham's book _ANSI Common Lisp_ right now
(*excellent* book, BTW, at least so far), and can think of a few
parallels:

* Uncluttered syntax, depending on your definition of uncluttered.

* Treatment of references and assignment is quite similar. 

* High-level data structures included, so you don't have to reinvent them.

* A large standard library, though Lisp's seems to focus more on data
  structures than on OS or network interfaces.

>From newsgroup discussion, it seems fairly clear that while Lisp is
sometimes used to teach functional programming, it's not really a
functional language because real Lisp programs aren't usually purely
functional; instead, it's a multiparadigm language where you can
program in your choice of imperative style, OO style, or functional
style.  You have similar freedom in Python; the other day I was
looking at some code written by another developer here, and it was
essentially functional style.

I don't think tail recursion, or even frequent use of recursion, is
necessarily a hallmark of Lisp; you could do everything in iterative
style if you preferred.

(Here's hoping they get the QuickTime video of that panel on the Web
soon.)

--amk