merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:

> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
>
>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
>> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
>> the system Common Lisp already provides.  Stuff like this is impossible
>> in other languages.
>
> Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about
> computer science?

Of course, but you have to realize that Turing-completeness is a
useless concept when comparing languages.  C and Python are both
Turing-complete.  So: write me some code in each that reads in a line
of text, splits it on spaces and stores the result in an array.  Which
would you rather write?  Which will be shorter and more easily changed
and straightforwardly grasped in the future?

QED.  Turing-completeness is irrelevant when comparing languages.
Take it as a given.