Python syntax in Lisp and Scheme

[Alex Martelli]

Andrew Dalke wrote:

> Alex:
>> Yeah, well, I fear the answer will be yes (it could), but it won't
>> do so since you haven't _asked_ it to wake you up, only if it
>> could.
> 
> Pshaw.  My hypothetical house of the 2050s or so will know
> that "could" in this context is a command.   :)

Good luck the first time you want to ask it about its capabilities,
and my best wishes that you'll remember to use VERY precise
phrasing then.


>>  ME, I definitely don't want to use natural language with
>> all of its ambiguity for anything exept communicating with
>> other human beings, thankyouverymuch.
> 
> But what if computers someday become equally capable
> as humans in understanding uncontrained speech?  It
> can be a dream, yes?

If computers become as complicated as human beings, and
I think that IS necessary for the understanding you mention,
I'll treat them as human beings.  I also think we have enough
human beings, and very fun ways to make new ones, as is,
so I don't see it as a dream to have yet more but made of
(silicon or whatever material is then fashionable).


>> > a language designed for text, not speed.
>>
>> *blink* what does THAT doubtful assertion have to do with anything
>> else we were discussing just now...?
> 
> An unfortunate typo.  I meant "speech" instead of "speed" but
> my fingers are too used to typing the latter.  Here I would like
> a computer to ask "um, did you really mean that?" -- so long as
> the false positive rate was low enough.

Well, I and other humans didn't even think that you might have made
a simple 'fingero' (not quite a typo but equivalent)...!-)


>> > For Lisp is a language tuned to keyboard input and not the full
>> > range of human expression.  (As with speech.)
>>
>> Python even more so on the output side -- try getting a screen-reader to
>> do a halfway decent job with it.  But what does this matter here?
> 
> The conjecture that computer programming languages are
> contrained by the form of I/O and that other languages, based
> on speech, free-form 2D writing, or other forms of input may
> be more appropriate, at least for some domain.
> 
> This was in response to the idea that Lisp is the most appropriate
> language for all forms of programming.

The syntax of Python would surely have to be changed drastically
if speech was the primary mean of I/O for it, yes.  As for lisp, that's
less certain to me (good ways to pronounce open and closed
parens look easier to find than good ways to pronounce whitespace
AND the [expletivedeleted] case-sensitive identifiers...:-).


Alex