merits of Lisp vs Python

[Wolfram Fenske]

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

> "Wolfram Fenske" <int2k at gmx.net> writes:

[...]

>> > I just don't see a non-messy way to simulate Python generators in CL.
>> > They can be done in Scheme using call/cc though.
>>
>> Scheme is also a Lisp.  So?
>
> No I don't buy that, you can't say Scheme is Lisp when it suits you to
> do so and that it isn't Lisp at other times.

OK, I cheated a bit.  (Although when I say "Lisp" I don't necessarily
mean Common Lisp.  Scheme is also Lisp.)  You are right about call/cc
and probably also about lexical variables.  I have to modify my
statement from "All the interesting features that haven't originated
from Lisp could easily be implemented in Lisp" to "A lot of the
interesting features ...".  Assertions starting with "all" are a
dangerous business because usually someone comes along with a
counter-example.  I should have been more careful when I wrote that.

What I meant to say with the two sentences "a lot of 'modern' language
features have originated from Lisp" and "a lot of the interesting
features that haven't originated from Lisp could easily be implemented
in Lisp" was that I believe that Lisp has hit a sweet spot in the
programming language continuum.  It must have been right about a lot
of things to still be alive and kicking after all this time.

[...]

>> >    http://www.math.chalmers.se/~rjmh/Papers/whyfp.html
>> >
>> > The examples in it are pretty easy to do in Python or Scheme, but I
>> > think not so easy in CL.
>>
>> Anything in particular?  I'd be surprised if the solutions in Scheme
>> and CL would differ very much
>
> I took it back,

Sorry, I only noticed that after posting.

--
Wolfram Fenske

A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?