Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[David Rush]

On Sat, 04 Oct 2003 17:02:41 GMT, Alex Martelli <aleax at aleax.it> wrote:
> Guido's generally adamant stance for simplicity has been the
> key determinant in the evolution of Python.

Simplicity is good. I'm just finding it harder to believe that Guido's 
perception of simplicity is accurate.

> Anybody who doesn't value simplicity and uniformity is quite
> unlikely to be comfortable with Python

I would say that one of the reasons why I program in Scheme is *because* I 
value simplicity and uniformity. The way that Python has been described in 
this discussion make me think that I would really
*hate* Python for it's unecessary complications if I went back to it.
And I have spent years admiring Python from afar. The only reason I
didn't adopt it years ago was that it was lagging behind the releases
of Tk which I needed for my cross-platform aspirations. At the time, I
actually enjoyed programming in Python as a cheaper form of Smalltalk
(literally, Unix Smalltalk environments were going for $4000/seat).

Probably the most I can say now is that I think that Python's syntax is 
unecessarily reviled (and there are a *lot* of people who think that
Python's syntax is *horrible* - I am not one of them mind you), in
much the same way that s-expressions are a stumbling block for programmers
from infix-punctuation language communities.

david rush
-- 
(\x.(x x) \x.(x x)) -> (s i i (s i i))
        -- aki helin (on comp.lang.scheme)