merits of Lisp vs Python

[Paddy]

Paul Rubin wrote:

> "Paddy" <paddy3118 at netscape.net> writes:
> > Python can be used as a glue language. It is not solely a glue
> > language.
> > A lot of people find using Python to script libraries written in other
> > languages
> > a way to get things done. Ask the scipy guys or the biopython guys.
>
> Sure, connecting together programs and libraries that were written in other
> languages is what a glue language is.
>
> > You don't always wrap a module in Python for reasons of speed of
> > execution.
> >
> > Software testing may well be easier to do in Python than in the
> > native language of the wrapped library. ...
>
> That's the thing, those modules are written in languages other than
> Python because Python is not attractive for coding those functions
> directly in Python.  That is a real weakness of Python and glossing
> over it by saying to write the functions in other languages and then
> wrap them in the C API is not a very impressive answer.  For example,
> Lisp is routinely used for writing scientific and numerical code
> directly with performance comparable to C or whatever.  There is no
> need to mess with wrapping modules written in other languages, an
> operation which should not be trivialized.
You failed to see that Python accepts that useful work is out their,
already written, and some of it is not written in Python.
Would you say that All useful code is only written in Lisp? Or that all
future useful code will only be written in Lisp?
You could waste a lot of time re-writing what is already available, in
Lisp.

- Paddy.