merits of Lisp vs Python

[Paul Rubin]

Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> writes:
> I don't agree. Syntax is significant for human readers, who are the vast
> majority of programmers.
> 
> Yes, people will get used to most syntax, eventually. But "used to"
> doesn't necessarily mean "can read it efficiently". I did a lot of FORTH
> coding in my youth, far more lines of code than Pascal, but Pascal was
> always easier to read than FORTH for me. Now, I can look at a page of
> Pascal code and it is still readable, but the FORTH... urgh.

Forth was always unreadable to me but I never did much.  I thought its
aficionados were silly.  Yes if you have a complicated math expression
in Lisp, you have to sit there for a moment rearranging it in infix in
your mind to figure out what it says.  The point is that such
expressions aren't all that common in typical Lisp code.

Anyway, you know this song?  I don't think it could have been written
for Python, which is what I mean about Lisp being primordial:

  http://www.songworm.com/db/songworm-parody/EternalFlame.html  words
  http://www.prometheus-music.com/audio/eternalflame.mp3        audio

> But that isn't to say that the syntax of Lisp is for everybody. Far from
> it -- I'd be willing to bet that Lisp developers are a self-selected group
> of far above average intelligence. That would explain why so many of them
> seem to be so much more comfortable with higher-order functions than most
> other people -- even intelligent people. 

Nah, try Haskell for that.