Python becoming less Lisp-like

[James Graves]

Brandon J. Van Every <try_vanevery_at_mycompanyname at yahoo.com> wrote:
>James Graves wrote:
>>
>> So with Python 3000, you're going to end up with a language just as
>> big as CL, but without the most fundamental building blocks.  Ah
>> well, to each his own.
>
>Preventing people from building things from scratch is probably an
>industrial advantage.  

I believe that steering people away from building similar constructs
from scratch is a good thing.  You end up different implementations
which do almost, but not quite, the same thing.  And that is a hassle to
maintain.

However, trying to _prevent_ this in the language itself is too
restrictive, IMHO.  Most (perhaps nearly all) of the time, I should be
using the standard constructs provided by the language base.  But there
will be times and circumstances where I will want to build my own, from
the ground up.

And some of these times, that will be the Right Thing to Do, too.

>Look how fragmented the Lisp world is.

I have looked at the Lisp world.  In depth.  It's not as bad as it used
to be, and it is getting better day-by-day.  

If you want a nice enviroment to learn programming, get DrScheme.  There
are some good (free!) books out there on the 'net.

If you want to do application development, Common Lisp is where it's at,
no doubt about it.  There are more and better libraries for CL these
days, and they are easier to install and manage with tools like ASDF. 
Multiple open-source implementations, covering the most popular
platforms (Windows, Linux, Mac).

Cheers,

James Graves