merits of Lisp vs Python

Paddy paddy3118 at netscape.net
Fri Dec 8 17:22:15 EST 2006


JShrager at gmail.com wrote:

> Okay, since everyone ignored the FAQ, I guess I can too...
>
> Mark Tarver wrote:
> > How do you compare Python to Lisp?  What specific advantages do you
> > think that one has over the other?
>
> (Common) Lisp is the only industrial strength language with both pure
> compositionality and a real compiler. What Python has is stupid slogans
> ("It fits your brain." "Only one way to do things.") and an infinite
> community of flies that, for some inexplicable reason, believe these
> stupid slogns. These flies are, however, quite useful because they
> produce infinite numbers of random libraries, some of which end up
> being useful. But consider: Tcl replaced Csh, Perl replaced Tcl, Python
> is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
> rapidly replacing Python. Each is closer to Lisp than the last; the
> world is returning to Lisp and is dragging the flies with it.
> Eventually the flies will descend upon Lisp itself and will bring with
> them their infinite number of random libraries, and then things will be
> where they should have been 20 years ago, but got sidetracked by Tcl
> and other line noise.

What is it about Lisp that despite doing everything first, way before
any other language, people don't stop using anything else and
automatically turn to Lisp? Maybe there is more to this everything than
the Lisp community comprehends.
Maybe Lisp is to science, as Python is to engineering - with a slight
blurring round the edges?

- Paddy.




More information about the Python-list mailing list