merits of Lisp vs Python

[Timofei Shatrov]

On Sat, 09 Dec 2006 20:36:02 +1100, Steven D'Aprano
<steve at REMOVE.THIS.cybersource.com.au> tried to confuse everyone with this
message:

>On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 23:38:02 -0800, Wolfram Fenske wrote:
>
>> if Common Lisp didn't have CLOS, its object system, I could write my own
>> as a library and it would be just as powerful and just as easy to use as
>> the system Common Lisp already provides.  Stuff like this is impossible
>> in other languages.
>
>Dude. Turing Complete. Don't you Lisp developers know anything about
>computer science?

Here, you've basically shot yourself in the ass. Appealing to Turing
completeness when talking about programming language features is about the
dumbest thing you can make. In Turing sense, a program is simply a function that
takes an argument and returns a value. It doesn't say anything about how this
function was implemented. It could be Turing machine, lambda calculus, Markov
chains or whatever else. All these methods produce the same set of programs, but
that doesn't mean you could implement lambda in Turing machine for example.

Is is time for someone to read his computer science books again?

-- 
|Don't believe this - you're not worthless              ,gr---------.ru
|It's us against millions and we can't take them all... |  ue     il   |
|But we can take them on!                               |     @ma      |
|                       (A Wilhelm Scream - The Rip)    |______________|