merits of Lisp vs Python

[George Sakkis]

JShrager at gmail.com wrote:

> 1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it
means.

> with pure compositionality, and that this makes it suprior to Python.

Perhaps it does in some programming language theory research groups. In
the real world, superiority has to do with far more than technical
merits alone, let alone obscure metaprogramming features which are
irrelevant to the vast majority of programmers.

> 2. Ruby, which is closer to Lisp than Python, is beginning to eat
> Python's lunch. We don't have to debate this either because George has
> kindly gave support to it through posting a survey that made this point
> quite nicely; Thanks, George! :-)

AKA "if you can't beat them, join them". I don't know if other lispers
would join you in your feeble attempt to steal a bite from Ruby's
current glory (mostly thanks to the admirable marketing around the
overhyped Rails framework), but Ruby is much closer to Python than
either of them is to lisp. In fact, if Python suddenly disappeared,
Ruby would probably be my next stop. Both Ruby and Python are high
level dynamic languages with an emphasis on pragmatic needs, not being
the language of the God(s) (see, I can bring up stupid slogans of
languages too). The similarities between Python and Ruby outweigh their
differences, resulting in very few defections from one to the other, so
nobody's eating the other's lunch. They are both appealing alternatives
to different (overlapping) subsets of the Java/C++/Perl/PHP crowd, and
the choice between the two usually comes down to a subjective
preference about the syntax, the availability of libraries or other
non-technical reasons.

> BTW, for the record, I don't have anything particularly against Python
> aside from its stupid marketing hype and a bit of jealousy over those

Talk about a well-founded reason to diss a language.

George