Python from Wise Guy's Viewpoint

[Joachim Durchholz]

Espen Vestre wrote:

> Joachim Durchholz <joachim.durchholz at web.de> writes:
> 
>> Maybe. I'm pretty sure it wasn't Xerox, but something else.
> 
> Perhaps a "Siemens lisp machine"? (which was a Xerox with a Siemens 
> sticket on it :-))

No, it had some US label on it - but my recollections are getting quite
dim here, I fear I'm producing random noise instead of information on
that topic.
It's all too long in the past :-)

(Actually, the mainframe that we were working on was a truly
international machine: the outside stickers said "Siemens", the inside
stickers said "Fujitsu", and the manuals said "IBM". That was before
Siemens bought Fujitsu.)

>> Though that's already too long for a commercial project. Job 
>> satisfaction is an important factor, and forcing developers to
>> adopt to many parentheses is just a needless irritation (from a
>> boss's perspective, Lispers will do fine with them of course).
> 
> I have seen programmers adopt very quickly to lisp syntax, I don't 
> know why you had a problem with it. Maybe you had bad instructors or
> a bad programming environment.

No, your sample is biased: your everyday acquaintances are those who,
sooner or later, made that transition. Those who don't will vanish from
your surroundings, sooner or later.
(Admittedly, I'm guessing here. But this sounds reasonable, at least for
me.)

Anyway. Whether the PHBs' reasoning is valid or not, it will prevent
that Lisp will enter the mainstream in the foreseeable future.

>>> Yet another point: Inside every substantially advanced program, 
>>> there's a lisp trying to get out.
>> 
>> I agree with that, though one could replace "Lisp" with other
>> language names.
> 
> No, you can't.

Well, I have seen other names in similar quotes...

Regards,
Jo