What's better about Ruby than Python?

[Jacek Generowicz]

mis6 at pitt.edu (Michele Simionato) writes:

> This is a tautology. If a Lisp is Common, then it is Common Lisp.

I'll assume you forgot a smiley, and let this pass, otherwise we'll be
stuck here forever.

> I was talking here about Scheme, Emacs Lisp, etc. Now you argue that
> these are not dialects of Lisp but entirely different languages. To
> be honest, I do think you have reasons for this claim. Nevertheless,
> outside of the Lisp community, everybody who says the name Lisp in a
> language (ex. Emacs Lisp) would expect that it is a dialect of Lisp.
> So, the confusion is unavoidable.

Indeed, and therefore it is important (in the current context), to
clear up the confusion. So I state once again:

  Saying that a language is a "dialect of Lisp" is similar to saying
  that a language is "in the Algol Family"; in both cases it is a
  statement about the style of syntax on which the language is based,
  and leaves open the possibility that it has little else in common
  with other languages in the family.

> In Lisp I would agree there is a basic reference, i.e. CL.

"In the Algol Family I would agree there is a basic reference, i.e
C++."

Sorry, no. (As much as I would like the other Lisps to go away :-)
it's just factually incorrect.)

> In the Python community I don't think macros would necessarely
> generate a fragmentation in dialects, since Pythonistas like
> to write standardized (even indented !) code. Still, I would
> prefer to maintain the status quo and leave things are they
> are. If I want macros, I can always use Lisp/Scheme, isn't it?

Yes, but what if you don't like Lisp (I'll be generous, and include
Scheme under this name :-), but you do like Python ?