merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

I V <wrongbad at gmail.com> writes:

> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 03:18:07 -0500, Bill Atkins wrote:
>> We're not counting lines here, you goon.  We're talking about how
>> expressive constructs are and how closely they match your concept of
>> what you want to do.  The conditional example is lower-level; you're
>> talking to the interpreter instead of saying what you want to achieve.
>> You're having to repeat things because that's what the language asks
>> of you, instead of describing in a higher-level way what you're
>> actually doing.
>
> To be a little provocative, I wonder if the idea that you're "talking to
> the interpreter" doesn't apply more to lisp than to python; you can have
> any syntax you like, as long as it looks like an AST. 

Uhhh?

> One of the things I've always found off-putting about lisp as that all the
> syntax looks the same. In Algol-derived languages, each syntactic
> construct has a fairly distinctive appearance, so when, for instance, I
> encounter a for loop, I can quickly recognize that that's what it is, and
> bracket out the "scaffolding" and pick out the details that interest me.
> With lisp, I can't do that, I have to read through the sexp, decide on
> what syntax it is, and then remind myself where to look for the relevant
> specific details.

"Decide on what syntax it is"?  Examples?

> Now, this might well be just due to my comparative lack of familiarity
> with lisp; I'd be interested to hear if you lisp people find different
> lisp constructs as visually distinctive as constructs in python (or other
> similar languages). But I think what people are getting at when they
> complain about "all the brackets" in lisp may actually be this issue of
> a visual distinction between different constructs (this is also a reason
> why having a limited number of syntactic constructs can be helpful - there
> are a probably a  limited number of stereotypical layouts a programmer can
> keep in their mind at once).

We rely on indentation for readability just as you guys do.  Lisp
programs are not chaotic arrangements of parentheses and symbols; code
structure is made apparent through indentation.

(Why are people from c.l.p calling parentheses "brackets"?)