Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Mark Wilson]

On Monday, October 13, 2003, at 04:52 AM, Alex Martelli wrote:

> [snip]   ...
>>>> 3. Python's syntax is one of the worst features of the language and
>>>
>>> Ha.
>>
>> How cogent.
>
> What other kind of response were you expecting to such a deliberately
> inflammatory statement, claiming as "established" a key point on which
> consensus is _clearly_ lacking?

I don't believe that truths are established by consensus. They are  
established by being proven.

>
>>>> should not be adopted by Lisp and Scheme.
>>>
>>> Obviously not, as it would not fit in with all the rest of their
>>> features.
>>
>> That idea was the point of the post that started this thread/
>
> Yes, and it was a most obviously wrong-headed idea from the word go.
> The whole thread should have died unborn.

While you may not remember ;-), you were one of the first people to  
respond to the original post, and did not express the above sentiments.  
  See:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF- 
8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=10&as_ma 
xy=2003&selm=87efb.217818%24R32.6985678%40news2.tin.it

> [snip]
>
> Google Advanced Groups Search lists 19 posts by Joe Marshall with
> the subject "python syntax in lisp and scheme", and 15 more by
> prunesquallor on comp.lang.python -- do you _really_ think it  
> reasonable
> to ask for others to research those 34 posts (or more, if some of the
> arguments were not posted in either of these exact ways), and divine  
> which
> ones out of them made those oh-so-incredible points you currently deem
> to be unanswerable, when you can't be bothered to identify them more
> precisely?

Please see the following links:

http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF- 
8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=3&as_maxm=10&as_ma 
xy=2003&selm=he2qdv4y.fsf%40ccs.neu.edu

http://groups.google.com/ 
groups?q=g:thl1303631361d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF- 
8&selm=vfqw2u3c.fsf%40comcast.net

http://groups.google.com/ 
groups?q=g:thl3504039334d&dq=&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF- 
8&as_drrb=b&as_mind=29&as_minm=3&as_miny=1995&as_maxd=8&as_maxm=10&as_ma 
xy=2003&selm=wubg634p.fsf%40comcast.net


> [snip]
>
>>>> 4. The productivity of the prolific posters must have precipitously
>>>> phaded.
>>>
>>> True in my case -- the amount of FUD and insults posted and
>>> demanding response being so high -- as seen above, even so I
>>> may not have noticed all of the "is establishes" alleged ``analyses''
>>> which sufficiently clueless readers (and you seem to be successfully
>>> posing as one) may think "irrefutable" unless one tediously, over
>>> and over, cuts them to confetti-size shreds and throws back
>>> into their proponents' faces.
>>
>> The above is really uncalled for and beneath a person of your  
>> purported
>> stature. It makes me wonder if I was wrong to think highly of you.
>
> If your "thinking highly" included thinking that I'd let that [numerous
> expletives deleted] assertion of yours right at the start of your  
> point 3
> pass unchallenged, you most definitely have another think coming.

Challenge away at such assertion. I would like to hear reasoned views  
on the question.

>> Confronting Lisp may have had a deleterious effect on your thinking.  
>> As
>
> Judging on claims made by many lisp advocates on this thread, I fully
> understand your fears that having anything to do with lisp may have
> deleterious effects on one's thinking.

Touche.

> [snip]

>> to me being clueless, that may be true, although I have my doubts.
>
> Please read my words as carefully as I write them, thanks.  They're
> accurately quoted above: I say you SEEM to be successfully POSING
> as one.  Whether somebody might possibly BE so clueless as to
> state the first sentence in your point 3 in all sincerity, at this  
> point of
> the thread, I have more serious doubts -- I guess I shouldn't be  
> setting
> any arbitrary limits to possible human follies -- but a perhaps more
> reasonable working hypothesis is one of a deliberate bid to rekindle
> flamewars that might otherwise be about to die thanks to general
> exhaustion of contenders.

I feel boxed in by the above. Am I sincere and therefore representative  
of the greatest extent of human folly? Am I slightly less than totally  
clueless and therefore guilty of deliberately seeking to inflame? In  
point of fact, I am sincere. I am curious why no one has mounted a  
persuasive defense of Python's syntax and interested in hearing any.

>> [snip]
>
>>>> 5. Use Ruby, be happy.
>>>
>>> I earnestly hope you'll start a new cross-thread between c.l.lisp and
>>> c.l.ruby about first-class functions, macros, case sensitivity,  
>>> regular
>>> expressions as inherently embedded in the language, and whatever
>>> else can most enflame them -- please leave c.l.ruby out of it, tx.
>>
>> I have nothing against Lisp or Scheme (I'm learning both). I have
>> nothing against Ruby either (Ruby is my favorite language and the  
>> first
>> one I started learning). It has the advantage of not considering other
>> programming languages a waste of time. I have never heard a Ruby
>> programmer complain about others "wasting" their efforts on other
>> programming languages. I have heard such talk from Python people. So
>> what is it with the Python people?
>
> I have never seen a Python person claim that Python is the ONLY  
> programming
> language that should be considered for any possible programming  
> endeavour
> whatsoever (neither have I seen Ruby people claiming that).

I assume by your denial of what I did not say that you are admitting  
what I did say.

> I *HAVE* rather
> often seen lispers making exactly such an outrageous claim, including  
> many of
> them on this thread.  Therefore, your targeting such an accusation of  
> "one
> true wayism" against Pythonistas, rather than against lispers, is  
> ridiculous
> to the point of making it just too difficult for me to accept that you  
> may be
> in good faith in making it: in other words, your "successful posing"  
> above
> hypothesized appears now to have developed a crack in its facade, and  
> you
> show up as deliberately trying to pick fights -- be it against me  
> personally,
> against all Pythonistas, or whatever.

Well, I am merely observing the Python missionary syndrome and asking  
why some Python people tend to start these fights with other languages.  
It is clear to me from the Python mailing list and from appearances by  
Python people on other language mailing lists that a substantial number  
of Python people do practice "one true wayism" (as you put it). I don't  
think it is ridiculous and my point was made in good faith. I am not  
"posing" nor creating a facade. I am not deliberately trying to pick  
fights. I am, however, aware that uttering even slightly critical words  
about Python (much less bold statements) in the presence of Python  
people will engender "touchy" responses.

> [snip]

> OTOH, a language which has a substantial number of proponents claiming
> it's the best for EVERY task, will consistently have those proponents  
> holding
> the opinion that dabbling in any other language must be a waste of  
> time.
> That attitude is typically associated with large all-encompassing  
> languages,
> such as common lisp or c++, rather than with small nimble languages  
> which
> to a higher or lesser degree consider language simplicity a plus.

 From my monitoring of the Python mailing list, I think that this view  
is at most a plurality view among Python people and not the consensus  
view.

Regards,

Mark Wilson