merits of Lisp vs Python

[Joel Wilsson]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2006 15:05:04 +0100, Stefan Nobis wrote:
> > Ever talked to skateboarders? Other people of different scenes? They
> > are creating new, specialized languages every day.
>
> Yes, that's right. And if they insist on using their specialist language
> where "that's bad" means "that is best quality", and I insist on using
> my language where "that's bad" means "that is worst quality", how much
> successful communication are we going to have?

Having such a specialist language, which goes against common
practice, would be stupid. There nothing to gain from doing so,
so it's not done.

The same is true for macros. Redefining everything and programming
in your own special way just to be different would be stupid, and
it's not done.
Everyone keeps telling you this but you keep ignoring it.

Wonder why.

Macros are used where they must be used, to do things that are not
possible with functions. Functions have benefits that macros don't
have, and for most things (but not all things), those benefits are
more useful than the benefits provided by macros.

I will also note that Ken Tilton was right about analogies, and
far too much of this discussion is now about English language, not
the merits of Lisp vs Python. Sad, because there is some good
stuff in here.