Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 05:18:39 -0800, Kay Schluehr wrote:

>> What's far more interesting to me, however, is that I think there a good
>> reasons to suspect python's slowness is more of a feature than a flaw: I'd not
>> be suprised if on the whole it greatly increases programmer productivity and
>> results in clearer and more uniform code.
> 
> Yes, it's Guidos master-plan to lock programmers into a slow language
> in order to dominate them for decades. Do you also believe that Al
> Quaida is a phantom organization of the CIA founded by neocons in the
> early '90s who planned to invade Iraq?

Of course not. The alternative, that Osama has been able to lug his
dialysis machine all over the Pakistan and Afghan mountains without being
detected for four years is *much* more believable. *wink*

I don't think it was the poster's implication that Guido deliberately
created a slow language for the sake of slowness. I think the implication
was more that Guido made certain design choices that increased
productivity and code clarity. (That much is uncontroversial.) Where the
poster has ruffled some feathers is his suggestion that if Guido had only
known more about the cutting edge of language design from CS, Python would
have been much faster, but also much less productive, clear and popular.

I guess the feather ruffling is because of the suggestion that Guido
merely _didn't_know_ about language features that would have increased
Python's speed at the cost of productivity, rather than deliberately
choose to emphasis productivity at the expense of some speed.



-- 
Steven.