Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Raffael Cavallaro]

Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> wrote in message news:<bm9g9m$28n$1 at newsreader2.netcologne.de>...

> Lispniks are driven by the assumption that there is always the 
> unexpected. No matter what happens, it's a safe bet that you can make 
> Lisp behave the way you want it to behave, even in the unlikely event 
> that something happens that no language designer has ever thought of 
> before. And even if you cannot find a perfect solution in some cases, 
> you will at least be able to find a good approximation for hard 
> problems.

This I believe is the very crux of the matter. The problem domain to
which lisp has historically been applied, artificial intelligence,
more or less guaranteed that lisp hackers would run up against the
sorts of problems that no one had ever seen before. The language
therefore evolved into a "programmable programming language," to quote
John Foderaro (or whoever first said or wrote this now famous line).

Lisp gives the programmer who knows he will be working in a domain
that is not completely cut and dried, the assurance that his language
will not prevent him for doing something that has never been done
before. Python gives me the distinct impression that I might very well
run up against the limitations of the language when dealing with very
complex problems.

For 90% of tasks, even large projects, Python will certainly have
enough in its ever expanding bag of tricks to provide a clean,
maintainable solution. But that other 10% keeps lisp hackers from
using Python for exploratory programming - seeking solutions in
problem domains that have not been solved before.