merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

"mystilleef" <mystilleef at gmail.com> writes:

> Mark Tarver wrote:
>> How do you compare Python to Lisp?  What specific advantages do you
>> think that one has over the other?
>>
>> Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here.  This is
>> just a question for my general education.
>>
>> Mark
>
> Advantages of Python:
>
> 1). More and better mature standard libraries (Languages don't matter,
> libraries do).
> 2). Multiple programming paradigms (including functional style
> programming see itertools, functools, operator modules (lambda, map,
> filter, reduce, sum etc builtins), higher order functions, list
> comprehension, blah, blah)
> 3). Better OO implementation. (I used to hate OO until I started using
> Python)
> 4). Ultimate glue language (Plays well with C, C++, Java, .NET. nuff
> said. Bindings for almost any lib worth using, at least on *nix)
> 5). Clearer syntax.
> 6). Better namespace management. (nobody ever talks about this, but
> Python seems to be one of the few languages that gets symbol management
> right from a users perspective)
> 7). Easier packaging and distribution system.
> 8). Ubiquity! Python is everywhere. Lisp, bleh.
> 9). Relatively good docs (PHP has better).
> 10). Fewer perceived community assholes. Large community.
> 11). Less fragmentation.

Are any of these not subjective?

> Advantages of Lisp:
>
> Learning a functional language can improve your programming range and

Lisp is much more than a functional language.

> depth. And today, I wouldn't even recommend Lisp (it's rather archaic),
> when there's mind bending Haskell. I'd go as far as saying I believe
> Haskell has a better fate than Lisp.

Yeah, that's pretty far.

> On Lisp Macros:
>
> I think they are overrated, and in general cause more harm than good.
> It's the reason I find Lisp-like programs difficult to grok, maintain
> and extend. Cos every smart ass wants to needlessly write his own mini
> language to the point of absolute obfuscation. Naturally, I'm supposed
> to be awed by his mischievous cleverness.

Uh huh.  Can you cite examples of this?  Sounds like you're just
making stuff up here.  Contrary to popular belief, writing a Lisp
macro that warps your mind and introduces a totally un-CL-like
semantics is extremely difficult.  Most of the people who are good
enough at CL to do it (I'm certainly not one of them) are also
experienced enough to know when it's the right choice.

And Lisp environments all support getting the macroexpansion,
documentation, and source of any unfamiliar macro you might happen
upon, so really this is not as much of a problem as you might
fantasize it to be.

> Conclusion:
>
> The semantics or features of a language is almost irrelevant today.
> Developers want to put the lego pieces together, they don't want to
> make lego. Rewriting the sun and moon, or needlessly reinvent the wheel
> was popular in the 70s, but it's boring and expensive today. Today,
> when a developer needs to solve a problem, the question they ask is,
> "Is there a library for that?". If the answer is no, they a more likely
> to switch to a language that provides a library that solves their
> problem. The challenge for developers today is software architecture,
> robustness and scalability, not language purity or semantics. The Lisp,
> and to an extent Haskell, community will never ever ever grok this.
> They'll continue to wonder why an "inferior" language like Python keeps
> getting popular. It will always escape them that it might be because
> Python is actually easier to use for most people to write "real world"
> applications. It has good usability.

I don't agree with a lot of what you say in this paragraph, but I
you're right that libraries are crucial.  That's why I wish there were
more people writing Lisp libraries instead of being scared away by
sheer fabrications like the stuff that's appearing in this thread.