Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Alex Martelli]

Kenny Tilton wrote:
   ...
>>>But methinks a number of folks using Emacs Elisp and Autocad's embedded
>>>Lisp are non-professionals.
>> 
>> Methinks there are a great many more people using the VBA
>> interface to AutoCAD than its Lisp interface.  In fact, my friends
>> (ex-Autodesk) told me that's the case.
> 
> Sheesh, who hasn't been exposed to basic? From my generation, that is.
> :) But no matter, the point is anyone can handled parens if they try for
> more than an hour.

Yes, but will that make them most happy or productive?  The Autocad
case appears to be relevant, though obviously only Autodesk knows
for sure.  When I was working in the mechanical CAD field, I had
occasion to speak with many Autocad users -- typically mechanical
drafters, or mechanical or civil engineers, by training and main working
experience -- who HAD painfully (by their tales) learned to "handle
parens", because their work required them occasionally to write Autocad
macros and once upon a time Autolisp was the only practical way to do it --
BUT had jumped ship gleefully to the VBA interface, happily ditching
years of Autolisp experience, just as soon as they possibly could (or
earlier, i.e. when the VBA thingy was very new and still creaky in its
integration with the rest of Autocad -- they'd rather brave the bugs
of the creaky new VBA thingy than stay with the Autolisp devil they
knew).  I don't know if syntax was the main determinant.  I do know
that quite a few of those people had NOT had any previous exposure to
any kind of Basic -- we're talking about mechanics-junkies, more likely
to spend their spare time hot-rodding their cars at home (Bologna is,
after all, about 20 Km from Ferrari, 20 Km on the other side from
Minardi, while the Ducati motorcycle factory is right here in town,
etc -- *serious* mechanics-freaks country!), rather than playing with
the early home computers, or program for fun.

So, I think Autocad does prove that non-professional programmers
(mechanical designers needing to get their designs done faster) CAN
learn to handle lisp if no alternatives are available -- and also
that they'd rather not do so, if any alternatives are offered.  (I
don't know how good a lisp Autolisp is, anyway -- so, as I mentioned,
there may well be NON-syntactical reasons for those guys' dislike
of it despite years of necessarily using it as the only tool with
which they could get their real job done -- but I have no data that
could lead me to rule out syntax as a factor, at least for users
who were OCCASIONAL users anyway, as programming never was their
REAL, MAIN job, just means to an end).


>>>You (Alex?) also worry about groups of programmers and whether what is
>>>good for the gurus will be good for the lesser lights.
>> 
>> If you ever hear me call anyone who is not an expert programmer
>> a "lesser light" then I give you -- or anyone else here -- permission
>> to smack me cross-side the head.
> 
> Boy, you sure can read a lot into a casually chosen cliche. But can we
> clear up once and for all whether these genius scientists are or are not
> as good a programmer as you? I thought I heard Python being recommended
> as better for non-professional programmers.

Dunno 'bout Andrew, but -- if the scientists (or their employers) are
paying Andrew for programming consultancy, training, and advice, would
it not seem likely that they consider that he's better at those tasks
than they are...?  Otherwise why would they bother?  Most likely the
scientists are better than him at _other_ intellectual pursuits -- be
it for reasons of nature, nurture, or whatever, need not interest us
here, but it IS a fact that some people are better at some tasks.
There is too much programming to be done, to let ONLY professional
programmers do it -- just like there's too much driving to be done, to
let only professional drivers do it -- still, the professionals can be
expected to be better at their tasks of specialistic expertise.


Alex