merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:

>> In fact, all previously correct programs continue to work as before,
>> and in addition, some hitherto incorrect programs become correct.
>> That's an increase in power: new programs are possible without losing
>> the old ones.
>
> There's more to power than making more programs possible.  We also
> want to be able to distinguish correct programs from incorrect ones.
> Lisp has the power to eliminate a large class of pointer-related
> errors that are common in C programs, so Lisp is more powerful than C
> in that regard.  Increasing the number of programs one can write in
> the unfounded hope that they might be correct is just one way to
> increase power.  You can sometimes do that by adding features to the
> language.  Increasing the number of programs you can write that are
> demonstrably free of large classes of errors is another way to
> increase power.  You can sometimes do that by REMOVING features.
> That's what the Lisp holdouts don't seem to understand.
>
>> Right. GC gets rid of /program errors/. Pure functional programming
>> gets rid of /programs/.
>
> GC also gets rid of programs.  There are programs you can write in C
> but not in Lisp, like device drivers that poke specific machine
> addresses.

I'm sure this would be news to the people who wrote the operating
system for the Lisp machine.

What makes you think that a Lisp implementation couldn't provide this?

-- 
There are three doors. Behind one is a tiger. Behind another: the
Truth. The third is a closet... choose wisely.

(remove-if (lambda (c) (find c ";:-")) "a;t:k-;n-w at r;p:i-.:e-d:u;")