merits of Lisp vs Python

[Pascal Costanza]

Paul Rubin wrote:
> Pascal Costanza <pc at p-cos.net> writes:
>> You can start with loop by using only the simple and straightforward
>> constructs, and slowly move towards the more complicated cases when
>> necessary. The nice thing about loop is that with some practice, you
>> can write code that more or less reads like English.
> 
> Yeah, but I'd also get English-like imprecision.  Anyway, If I wanted
> to write code that reads like English, I'd write in Cobol.  

That's the neat thing in Lisp: You can stay in Lisp if you want to write 
code in a different style. No need to switch your whole tool chain.

>> All Common Lisp implementations that I am aware of provide ways to
>> enable TCO, so it's definitely possible to program in a functional
>> style if you want to. It's just that the ANSI Common Lisp
>> specification doesn't guarantee this,
> 
> Yes; I'd rather go by what the standard says than rely on
> implementation-dependent hacks.

You shouldn't limit yourself to what some standard says.


Pascal

-- 
My website: http://p-cos.net
Common Lisp Document Repository: http://cdr.eurolisp.org
Closer to MOP & ContextL: http://common-lisp.net/project/closer/