merits of Lisp vs Python

[JShrager at gmail.com]

Kay Schluehr wrote:

[Interesting and useful analysis of issues in language homogenization
snipped.]

> > You might even get a compiler out of the deal, at
> > a pretty low cost, too! If you get macros, and get a compiler, I'm
> > pretty sure that you will have no problem winning over the Lisp
> > community, who would LOVE to have your extensive libraries, and that
> > you will probably be able to maintain and improve your flagging
> > position wrt Ruby (which, according to Matz, is more-or-less just Lisp
> > w/o macros.)
>
> Just a moment ago you called programmers of other languages "flies"
> which I found annoying and now you offer LOVE in big letters?

Since everyone seems to have taken offence and this remark, let me
hereby apologize for the unintended implication. For the record, I
quote myself in full:

> Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
> compositionality and a real compiler. What Python has is stupid slogans
> ("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite
> community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
> stupid slogns. These flies are, however, quite useful because they
> produce infinite numbers of random libraries, some of which end up
> being useful. But consider: Tcl replaced Csh, Perl replaced Tcl, Python
> is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
> rapidly replacing Python. Each is closer to Lisp than the last; the
> world is returning to Lisp and is dragging the flies with it.
> Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring with
> them their infinite number of random libraries, and then things will be
> where they should have been 20 years ago, but got sidetracked by Tcl
> and other line noise.

I've already admitted that this was both a poor choice of words and, as
pointed out by Carl, an ad hominem argument. However, if you read the
whole thing you'll see that I'm really railing against the silly "It
fits your brain" and "Only one way to do things" marketing hype, and
programmers who seem to swallow and repeat it, not programmers in
general, nor even python programmers in general. In the last part it
say: "Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring
with them their infinite number of random libraries, ..." Note that I'm
looking forward to this! So, although "flies" was a poor choice of
words, for which I whole heartedly apologize to those who might have
taken offence (and I do understand the reading and why you might take
offense at this given the context!), what I meant to say was: "Hey, all
you busy little pythonistas creating a million interesting libraries
(and some not, but that's fine) come over here and help do that for our
language too!"

Maybe "beavers" would have been a better animal. Mea Culpa!

Regardless, the topic of the rest our conversation -- how to put macros
and a compiler into Python -- stands as an interesting possibility
because it would enable us to come to you rather than the other way
around -- I'd be happy either way.