merits of Lisp vs Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 02:51:50 +1100, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 14:21:17 +0000, Kirk Sluder wrote:
> 
>> In article 
>> <pan.2006.12.10.14.24.05.648068 at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au>,
>>  Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:
>> 
>>> Yes. But you can't redefine 1+2 in Python, at least not without hacking
>>> the interpreter. Can you redefine (+ 1 2) in Lisp? 
>> 
>> Not without barreling through error messages about name conflicts.
> 
> Ah, nice to get a straight answer to a question for a change, and without
> an insult or a misrepresentation in sight. Thank you.

Such a pity that answer is, apparently, wrong.

Thank you to those who wrote back with the more accurate answer, which
apparently is "yes, it is easy and there are no error messages".

I'd love to say it has been fun, but it has been more frustrating than
enjoyable. I don't mind an honest disagreement between people who
genuinely are trying to see the other's point of view, but I don't think
that was the case here. What was especially frustrating was that the more
I tried to understand certain Lispers' positions by asking questions, the
more nasty and insulting they became. So now I have an even better
understanding for why Lispers have a reputation for being difficult and
arrogant.

(And believe me, I could say a lot more about that, but I'm trying to be
conciliatory, so I'll just shut up now.)

But I also gained a little more insight into why Lispers love their
language. I've learnt that well-written Lisp code isn't as hard to read as
I remembered, so I'd just like to withdraw a comment I made early in the
piece. I no longer believe that Lisp is especially strange compared to
natural languages.

Anyway, real life catches up on me, and so I must drop out of this thread.
May it not last for ever.



-- 
Steven.