merits of Lisp vs Python

[Kirk Sluder]

In article 
<pan.2006.12.10.13.28.42.581905 at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au>,
 Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> wrote:

> And here I was thinking that languages fell from the sky like donuts!
> Gosh, thank you for explaining that too me. What a fool I must seem!

Certainly that is what you wrote. If you had not meant that English 
enforces restrictions on expressiveness, perhaps you should not have 
written it.
 
> Look, I was arguing a really simple point: for communication to occur
> between two individuals, both people must agree on a set of rules for the
> language that they use to communicate. If they don't have a common
> language with agreed upon rules, communication will be feeble and weak, if
> not non-existent, or there will be misunderstandings and errors.

No, in that post you are arguing a straw man. In this post you seem 
to be agreeing with me while acting like you disagree.

If we both agree that the rules of languages are social, then we 
should both agree that in the case of programming language, 
communities of language users help to constrain how the language is 
used by rejecting extensions that are not lispy/pythonic, and 
accepting extensions that converge with accepted style. 

> No. Your peers or your parents or your editor or your teachers correct
> you. Or you get a reputation for being "stupid" and people start treating
> you as if you were stupid -- maybe they start talk-ing ver-y slow-ly at
> you, using baby words. Or people just find it difficult to communicate
> with you, or misunderstand what you are trying to say.

And likewise, if you propose a construct that is unlispy/unpythonic, 
that construct is not likely to be adopted by the community of 
computer language users. 

Since you are apparently in complete agreement with the post you 
dishonestly quoted out of context, I don't see where we have an 
argument.

> Before patronizing me, do make the effort to understand what I am saying.

I understand what you wrote. Perhaps your problem is that in your 
rhetoric zest you chose to dishonestly attack a strawman, and chose 
to defend a position you now claim not to hold. 

> Are you man enough to acknowledge your error, or are you going to continue
> this ridiculous charade of attacking me for holding views I don't have?

I have no way of knowing the views that you have, only the views 
that you write. And if you don't write what you mean, I have no way 
of understanding that you are really in agreement with me, when you 
attack something I did not say.