merits of Lisp vs Python

[Kirk Sluder]

In article <7xvekcbhm9.fsf at ruckus.brouhaha.com>,
 Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote:

> Kirk  Sluder <kirk at nospam.jobsluder.net> writes:
> > Personally, I've always preferred use the imperative to describe 
> > _basic_ math rather than the passive. This would seem to map better to 
> > RPN than infix. 

(emphasis added)
 
> For writing down complicated, nested expressions too?  That's very
> unusual.  E.g.
> 
>   n! = (n/e)**n * sqrt(2*pi*n) * (1 + (1/12n)) * ...
> 
> vs. the same thing in Lisp notation, and that's not even so complicated.

I wasn't even talking about Polish notation vs. other standard 
notations. I was talking about your claimed correspondence between 
infix and natural Languages.

(1/12n) - "divide 1 by the product of" of 12 and n"
sqrt(2*pi*n) - "calculate the square root of the product of 2 pi and 
n." 

If computer languages were to mimic natural languages on this point, 
they would support both forms of expression and be sensitive to mode 
and mood.