merits of Lisp vs Python

[Jon Harrop]

Raffael Cavallaro wrote:
> Of course it does - Thats why we try ocaml and haskell etc. It's just
> that we don't see the useful features of these languages as being
> sufficiently useful to compensate for their lack of the ability to
> easily do syntactic abstractions over a uniform syntax.

That applies to the Lispers who've tried other languages and stayed with
Lisp.

> There's no 
> question that other languages have some features that common lisp does
> not (and vice versa). Lispers just can't abide being locked into a
> particular paradigm because a language doesn't have the basic features
> (macros and uniform syntax) necessary to provide new paradigms for
> ourselves when needed or wanted.

Why do you think that uniform syntax is necessary to provide new paradigms
when it is equivalent to infix syntax?

> For example, a common lisp with optional static typing on demand would
> be strictly more expressive than common lisp. But, take say, haskell;
> haskell's static typing is not optional (you can work around it, but
> you have to go out of your way to do so); haskell's pure functional
> semantics are not optional (again, workarounds possible to a limited
> extent).

In what way is Haskell's support for imperative programming limited?

> This requires you to conceive your problem solution (i.e., 
> program) within the framework of a particular paradigm. This lock-in to
> a particular paradigm, however powerful, is what makes any such
> language strictly less expressive than one with syntactic abstraction
> over a uniform syntax.

Can you give an example of a Lisp macro that does something useful that you
can't do in these other languages?

-- 
Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy
Objective CAML for Scientists
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/products/ocaml_for_scientists/index.html?usenet