merits of Lisp vs Python

[mystilleef]

Bill Atkins wrote:
> Well, for example, "Lisp uses a fully-parenthesized notation for
> writing programs" and "Python has significant whitespace" are both
> objective facts.  Agreed?  There's nothing subjective about those two
> facts.  Do any of your points approach that level of objectivity?

I believe so. Even though I wasn't trying to be.

> What experience is this?

Experience working with Scheme code in a project a few years back.

> Macros are not a substitute for libraries, nor are libraries a
> substitute for macros.  Having macros lets you build more powerful and
> more expressive libraries.
>

And not having them helps you build less powerful and expressive
libraries?

> > specialized libraries route. Meta-programming just doesn't tickle my
> > fancy. It just spells maintainance nightmare.
>
> So it's not just macros but metaprogramming as a whole that bothers
> you?  You must have an enjoyable time writing programs.

In Python, yes.

>
> >> And Lisp environments all support getting the macroexpansion,
> >> documentation, and source of any unfamiliar macro you might happen
> >> upon, so really this is not as much of a problem as you might
> >> fantasize it to be.
> >
> > How's this a good thing? I don't need a Python environment to grok
> > Python code.
>
> Nor do you need it to grok Lisp code. The environment is there to
> make your life better.  I was merely responding to your original claim
> that it's impossible to make sense of code that uses macros.
>

Not impossible, just painstaking.

> Hmm.  Anecdotal evidence about Scheme (a vastly and fundamentally
> different language from Common Lisp).  Again, you've clinched it for
> me.
>

I don't believe my experience would have been marginally different had
I used Common Lisp.

> I do believe that the "squealing and whining about macros" was a
> response to Pythonistas claiming that macros are not useful.  This was
> in turn in response to a foolishly (trollishly?) cross-posted
> question.  It is not as if we have invaded your newsgroup.

Pythonistas are not saying macros are not useful. They are saying their
usefulness in overrated, exaggerated and needless in the context of
Python. They are saying they don't see what they are missing and along
with the rest of the world couldn't give a damn whether or not it is
ever implemented in Python. Okay, I can't speak for all Pythonistas,
but that's what I'm saying.