merits of Lisp vs Python

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 16:14:44 -0800, JShrager at gmail.com wrote:

>> There is (IMO) some truth to that, but the flavor of Python
>> programming is not that much like Lisp any more.  Especially with
>> recent Python releases (postdating that Norvig article) using iterator
>> and generator objects (basically delayed evaluation streams) more
>> heavily, Python is getting harder to describe in Lisp terms.  It's
>> moving more in the direction of Haskell.
> 
> Sorry, I missed something here. Why do you need a release to have these
> sorts of things? Can't you just expand the language via macros to
> create whatever facility of this sort you need... Oh, sorry. You CAN'T
> expand the language.... Too bad.

No no, the phrase you want is "too good". 

> I guess waiting for Guido to figure
> out what Fits Your Mind is part of The Python Way.

For the benefit of anyone who thinks that the troll has a point, consider
this.

In the real world, programmers aren't lone wolves stalking the programming
landscape doing their own thing. Whether we're talking open
source projects maintained by volunteers, or commercial software teams,
standardized languages are a good thing. It is a good thing that not every
hare-brained idea that some random programmer comes up with can be
implemented as part of the core language. 

It is a good thing that when Fred decides to stop contributing to an
open source project (or leave the company), other people can read his code
without having to learn his Uber-Special Custom Macro Extended Language.
Even if Fred's USCMEL ran 35% faster (and thus saved an entire four
seconds on an average run with typical data!) the five or six weeks of
reduced programmer productivity when somebody else has to maintain his
code outweighs that.


-- 
Steven.