merits of Lisp vs Python

[Paddy]

JShrager at gmail.com wrote:

> > Python has to rely more on using the right algorithm...
>
> This sound familiar: "Macros are dangerous!"
Yes. I changed my opinion on advocating Python having macros in one
of our long threads on the subject. Maintainance counts.
> "Compilers make you lazy."
This is new to me. In fact, for the compiled languages available to me.
Using them *first* would be the difficult choice.
> "Worse is better!"
Yep, I think I read that one. To (over), summarise what I read: the
author
states that waiting for perfect will often give the advantage to a
competitor who ships with 'good enough'. The author gives examples.
The skill to me resides in knowing what is good enough ;-)

> (I have a Russian friend -- a mathematician -- who
> jokes that the reason the Soviets were great mathematicians because
> their computers sucked, so they had to use extensive formal
> manipulation to get things to run fast enough to get anything done. He
> was joking (I think); you don't appear to be.)
I can't vouch for your Russian friend, but yes I do think that the
gumph on
exponential time algorithms versus linear time algorithms makes sense.
I started using my first scripting language AWK whilst using C and went
through only using it for small tasks to using it for more and more
because it was fast enough. In my case I'd be finishing some task in
a much shoter time giving my customers solutions that might take 10
minutes to run instead of ten seconds, but they were using it in a flow
that took maybe overnight to run.
Unlike Lisp, Python does not have a ubiquitous compiler. It is
therefore
made to interface nicely with compiled languages. Other compiled
language users see the need for dynamic interpreted languages like
Python and maintain links Python such as the Boost Python C++
wrapper. IronPython for .NET, Jython for Java.
Lisp is its own interpreter and compiler, which should be a great
advantage, but only if you don't make the mistake of ignoring the
wealth of code out there that is written in other languages.

>
> > Talk to these guys:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PyPy they have an interesting take on
>
> No, actually maybe you should talk to them since you seem to think that
> making Python run fast is dangerous, or at least unnecessary.
>
> > Python has this unsung module called doctest that neatly shows some of
> > the strengths of python:   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctest
>
> Now I'm *certain* that you're just pulling my leg: You guys document
> all your random ten-line hacks in Wikipedia?!?! What a brilliant idea!
Python is newbie-friendly. Part of that is being accessible.
Doctest is about a novel way of using a feature shared by Lisp, that is
docstrings. Testing is important, usually not done enough, and doctests
are a way to get people to write more tests by making it easier. Does
Lisp have similar?
> Hey, you even have dead vaporware projects like uuu documented in
> Wikipedia! Cool! (Actually, I don't know that doctest is ten lines in
> Python, but it'd be about ten lines of Lisp, if that, so I'm just
> guessing here.)
Does Lisp have a doctest-like module as part of its standard
distribution?
Or are you saying that  If you ever needed it, then it would be trivial
to
implement in Lisp, and you would 'roll your own'? There are advantages
to 
doctest being one of Pythons standard modules.

- Paddy.