Python-list digest, Vol 1 #10572 - 14 msgs

[Andrew Dalke]

James J. Besemer:
> It seems that Python started out (as a Lisp derivitave) with much less
> of an OO emphasis.  I expect len(o) has precedent dating back to the
> original language.

and in another post
> Python claims a Lisp heritage, which I imagine is why and/or work
> the way they do.   But for decision making, original Lisp most often

As I understand it, Python's Lisp heritage is pretty indirect.
The most direct one I know of is docstrings, based on a similar
feature in elisp.

If there was lisp heritage, why isn't there anything like car/cdr?

To back up my statement, here's some quotes from Guido I found in
the Google usenet archives (no URLs since the Google links are too
long)
] Also, the Python docs (to the extent that I wrote them)
] *never* attribute *anything* to Scheme or Lisp.  Python comes from the
] Algol family of languages.

] (I'm a rabid Lisp-hater -- syntax-wise, not semantics-wise! -- and
] excessive parentheses in syntax annoy me.  Don't ever write return(i)
] or if(x==y): in your Python code! :-)

] Common Lisp and Scheme.
]
] These languages are close to Python in their dynamic semantics, but so
] different in their approach to syntax that a comparison becomes almost
] a religious argument: is Lisp's lack of syntax an advantage or a
] disadvantage?

] My conjecture: writing lambdas in Python is a bad habit, brought on
] from exposure to Lisp or Scheme.  Most Python code looks better after
] rewriting without lambdas.


There's also a relevant quote from Tim Peters:
] The problem Python set out to solve is that ABC was useless for
] real-life programming.  If Guido knows anything substantial about
] Lisp or Scheme, he's done an excellent job of hiding it for more
] than a decade.  I've seen him struggle with simple elisp, for God's
] sake <wink>.


                    Andrew
                    dalke at dalkescientific.com