merits of Lisp vs Python

[rdiaz02 at gmail.com]

Maybe this was already mentioned in this thread and I didn't see it.
Anyway, I find that Scheme (so I am talking about Scheme as a member of
the "lisp family") has  pedagogical advantages over Python.

1. There are a range of excellent books that will introduce not just
Scheme but programming and computer science to audiences with varied
background and previous programming experience.

1.1. I do not know of any Python equivalents to "The Little Schemer"
and "The Seasoned Schemer". These teach you recursion and "the art of
scheme programming". I think "Core Python Programming" (and, to a
lesser extent, "Learning Python") might teach some of "the art of
python programming", but the focus, style, and effectivenes are quite
different (and, I'd say, not as successful; you can read the little
schemer in a couple of long train commutes; there is no way you can do
that with Core Python Programming.). Sure, the style of "The little
Schemer" is not for everyone.

1.2. "How to design programs" is obviously a much broader,
comprehensive, detailed, and far-reaching textbook than (the nice) "How
to think like a computer scientist; learning with Python".

1.3. SICP has no counterpart in the Python world. I've read some people
have taught SICP like using Python (and that there is a new course at
MIT, taught by Abelson and/or Sussman, that will use Python, not
Scheme; but this is not a course that really substitutes the original
for which SICP was written). But SICP remains SICP. It'd be nice to see
something similar in Python.

1.4. More advanced material is available as "Programming Languages:
Application and Interpretation" (Krishnamurthi). I know of no Python
counterpart in the range and depth of topics covered.

1.5. Last, but not least, lots of this material is available on-line.
So you can check it out before buying the dead-tree version.

2. PLT scheme and Dr. Scheme are a wonderful learning environment for
Scheme, with no equivalent in Python. Its not just the great debugging
and tracing facilities, but also who you can restrict the language you
use to concentrate on some key features, so as to build incrementally
(to avoid the forest from preventing you to see some specific trees).
Interestingly, I think there has been at least one attempt to build
something similar for Python on top of Dr. Scheme (in PyCon 2004 or
2005?).

3. Schemers (some Schemers at least) are making a strong effort to
teach CS to audiences of varied backgrounds and experiences. They even
have a sequence that starts from basically 0, teaches you Scheme, and
ends up including Java (I guess this is catering to the "but I really
need Java to get a job when I get out of here!"). That Scheme is way
ahead of Python in this area I think has been recognized by relevant
members of the Python community (comp.lnag.python not long ago).

4. Python, instead, has the wealth of "nutshells", "pocket guides",
etc. Which are fine (I always have my Ptyhon in a Nuthsell and Python
Pocket Reference nearby when writing Python). But I doubt these books
really teach you basic computer science as the above do. They are of
the applied kind (and here probably the only Lisp coutnerpart might be
"Practical Common Lisp").


Why does all this matters (or at least matters to me, who am
considering moving most of my programming from Python to Scheme and
CL)?

a) If the issue of teaching programming to a kid/adolescent arises, I'd
definitely have a lot more resources, which also teach much more than
just a language, if I choose Scheme. (And, no, I do not think a
parenthesis is inherently more scary than a tab for someone who is new
to both).

b) I have no formal CS training; I am a biologist and statistician by
training and have used Basic, C/C++, Pascal, Fortran, R (oh, and RPL,
that minor language of the HP48 calc., which I used extensively for 18
months for writing lots of animal behavior recording programs). But
once and for all, I'd like to learn some basic CS, while learning how
to use a language. I have a strong feeling that, with the Scheme route,
this will be fulfilled. Not with Python. (Sure, this is also fulfilled
with Mozart/Oz and "Concepts and Techniques and Models of Comp.
Progr.", but Mozart/Oz does not seem as ready for the types of projects
I work on and there are speed issues). The first three chapters of SICP
and the first four chapters of CTM so far have really been
mind-expanding. None of the Python books I've read have felt anyway
similar (Python has felt cozy, nice, easy to use; not eye opening).

c) Now, if Scheme/CL were just "toy languages" we could dismiss all the
above by saying "we are not talking about why kids learn XYZ, nor why
CS ignorants like you prefer to be spoon fed basic CS concepts by
learning language UVW". But of course, I think that neither Scheme nor
CL are just toy languages.


Just my 2 cents.

Ramon