Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[prunesquallor at comcast.net]

Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> writes:

> 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 makes them feel safe.  (And the large libraries provided
> with Common Lisp and some Scheme systems still cover 90% of the
> standard tasks.)

The smartest programmers I know all prefer Lisp (in some form or 
another).  Given that they agree on very little else, that's saying
a lot.