merits of Lisp vs Python

[Aahz]

In article <1165598576.650860.126740 at 16g2000cwy.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Tarver <dr.mtarver at ukonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I'm looking at Python and I see that the syntax would appeal to a
>newbie.  Its clearer than ML which is a mess syntactically.  But I
>don't see where the action is in Python.   Not yet anyway.  Lisp syntax
>is easy to learn.  And giving up an order of magnitude is a high price
>to pay for using it over Lisp.

Speaking as someone who had been programming for more than twenty years
before learning Python (including a brief gander at Lisp), and also
referring to many years of observations of newcomers to Python: Python's
syntax also appeals to experienced programmers.

I would say that your statement about Lisp syntax is wrong.  Not that it
is technically inaccurate, but that it completely misses the point, so
much so that it is wrong to say it.  One of the key goals of Python is
readability, and while it is indeed easy to learn the rules for Lisp
syntax, observational experience indicates that many people (perhaps even
the vast majority of people) find it difficult to learn to read Lisp
programs.

As for your claims about speed, they are also nonsense; I doubt one
would find an order of magnitude increase of speed for production
programs created by a competent Lisp programmer compared to programs
created by a competent Python programmer.

Consider this: Lisp has had years of development, it has had millions of
dollars thrown at it by VC firms -- and yet Python is winning over Lisp
programmers.  Think about it.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

Member of the Groucho Marx Fan Club