merits of Lisp vs Python

[Ken Tilton]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 14:52:33 -0500, Ken Tilton wrote:
> 
> 
>>
>>Aahz wrote:
>>
>>>In article <1165598576.650860.126740 at 16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
>>>Mark Tarver <dr.mtarver at ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
>>>>newbie.  Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically.  But I
>>>>don't see where the action is in Python.   Not yet anyway.  Lisp syntax
>>>>is easy to learn.  And giving up an order of magnitude is a high price
>>>>to pay for using it over Lisp.
>>>
>>>
>>>Speaking as someone who had been programming for more than twenty years
>>>before learning Python (including a brief gander at Lisp), and also
>>>referring to many years of observations of newcomers to Python: Python's
>>>syntax also appeals to experienced programmers.
>>>
>>>I would say that your statement about Lisp syntax is wrong.  Not that it
>>>is technically inaccurate, but that it completely misses the point, so
>>>much so that it is wrong to say it.  One of the key goals of Python is
>>>readability, and while it is indeed easy to learn the rules for Lisp
>>>syntax, observational experience indicates that many people (perhaps even
>>>the vast majority of people) find it difficult to learn to read Lisp
>>>programs.
>>
>>No programming language is easy to read, 
> 
> 
> Well, you've just blown your credibility out the water with that nonsense. 

I am delighted to learn I had any to begin with.

Perhaps you are thinking of individual lines of code being easy to read. 
Sure.  I am talking about algorithms. Code cannot be read as if it were 
the Sunday comics. At any interesting level of complexity, one has to 
slow down and effectively hand-execute code in one's mind, not just read 
it as one reads natural language (and some of that makes one slow down 
to, no matter how well known are the individual words and grammar).

> 
> 
> 
>>and no Lisp programmer stopped 
>>using Lisp because they had been using it for a month and just could not 
>>get used to reading it.
> 
> 
> Or, to put it another way:
> 
> "No programmer who learned Lisp ever gave up before he learned Lisp."

That would be the obvious retort, but my observation was empirical, so I 
am afraid you need numbers, not word games.

You seem awfully hostile, by the way. Won't that make it harder to 
conduct an intelligent exchange of value to lurkers?

> I wonder, how many people gave up trying to learn Lisp because the
> language was too hard for them to read? Anyone like to bet that the number
> was more than zero?

Sorry, no one ever discovered Lisp, decided it would be great for 
programming, started learning it and then gave up because they could not 
handle the syntax. The syntax is actually easier to master because of 
its regularity, and lisp-aware editors handle the parentheses such that 
they disappear in a month.

Your position is untenable. It relies on this idea that all these Lisp 
programmers not only handle Lisp syntax effortlessly but also praise it 
as a significant advantage, they have all mastered several non-Lispy 
languages, but...what? They are mutants? Who just happen to have no 
problem with C and Java and Prolog and COBOL and Basic? Probably not.

If you are saying someone will glance at a Lisp book and say they cannot 
understand it, well, that is not very interesting is it?

ken

-- 
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
    -- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon