merits of Lisp vs Python

[Bill Atkins]

"Paddy" <paddy3118 at netscape.net> writes:

> JShrager at gmail.com wrote:
>
>> > Python has to rely more on using the right algorithm...
>>
>> This sound familiar: "Macros are dangerous!"
> Yes. I changed my opinion on advocating Python having macros in one
> of our long threads on the subject. Maintainance counts.

Yes, it does, but that should take you to exactly the opposite
conclusion.

>> "Compilers make you lazy."
> This is new to me. In fact, for the compiled languages available to me.
> Using them *first* would be the difficult choice.

These are not real sentences, but if you're saying that compiled
languages make programming more difficult, then you're simply using
the wrong compiled languages.  Lisp is a dynamic language that also
supports compilation to native code.

> Unlike Lisp, Python does not have a ubiquitous compiler. It is
> therefore
> made to interface nicely with compiled languages. Other compiled

What on earth does this mean?  You're saying that because Python
doesn't have a compiler, it can interface more easily to compiled
languages?  That's nonsense.

Further, most Lisp implementations support an interface to C that
doesn't require you to write and compile C code in order to use C
extensions in Lisp.  Can Python do the same more "nicely" than Lisp?

> language users see the need for dynamic interpreted languages like
> Python and maintain links Python such as the Boost Python C++
> wrapper. IronPython for .NET, Jython for Java.
> Lisp is its own interpreter and compiler, which should be a great
> advantage, but only if you don't make the mistake of ignoring the
> wealth of code out there that is written in other languages.

Um.