merits of Lisp vs Python

[Ken Tilton]

Robert Uhl wrote:
> Ken Tilton <kentilton at gmail.com> writes:
> 
>>meanwhile, I have not seen how Python lets you avoid revisiting dozens
>>of instances when changes to a mechanism are required.
> 
> 
> I think his solution would have been to use:
> 
>   def foo(**args):
> 
> everywhere, and call it like this
> 
>   foo(bar=baz)
> 
> Of course that makes calls pretty verbose, but it would prevent having
> to visit every function/method every time the signature changes.  As
> long they'd all been set up initially to use keyword args like that.
> And of course one would lose some of the compile-time benefits of
> compiler signature checking.
> 
> It's not optimal, but I think it'd get the job done.
> 

Cue Steve and his Turing Equivalence rant. <hint>

And as the mechanism has elaborated, neato things like signature 
flexibility were not enough to keep Python in the game. Or at least 
people stop offering Python equivalents, at which point we could have 
contrasted and compared.

Python /does/ have a lot of reflection and meta-capability, as I know 
from an abortive attempt to port Cells there. So perhaps something was 
possible.

ken

-- 
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
    -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon