merits of Lisp vs Python

[Kay Schluehr]

dixkey at gmail.com schrieb:

> I find it amusing that most of the arguments that python-people are
> making in this thread are actually the arguments that C++ and Java make
> against Python. "Who needs dynamic typing?", "Who needs closures?",
> "The idea of using whitespace for syntax is beyond stupid"... Now the
> python guys obviouly see that that those arguments are bogus, but they
> keep the same reasoning against lisp.

Yes, this structure of argument is the same in *any* discussion about
language design and feature integration. The solution could be laissez
faire but then you have to counteract creating standards for a minimal
contract social. In either way you cut down language feature diversity
and feature implementation redundancy, something macros strongly
encourage. So Lisp is always the right language to start with but what
is the right language to end with? The answer is BASIC and although the
reference to the historical BASIC language is not accidental, I
actually mean all kind of general purpose languages that aim to
facilitate programming in the first place. That's why Python = BASIC or
more accurately Python = ABC. Of course you can start with BASIC too,
instead of Lisp, or Ruby and quote Yukihiro Matsumoto who just wants
happy users - from the very beginning and not just after one month,
when one starts looking through the jungle of parens ( Ken Tilton ) or
perform any other cognitive transformation to ease the pain.

While Pythonistas might defend their language with all kind of typical
nerdish idiocy, Lispers try to convince Pythonistas to be unhappy,
because they lack X, Y and Z and recommend Lisp as the cure. But just
like a beautifull woman, Pythonistas stay unimpressed and do respond:
no, I don't lack anything, I am complete; stay away from me with your
weirdness!