Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[D H]

Donn Cave wrote:
> I can say "Python can serve as a scripting language for some applications",
> but not "Python is a scripting language!"

bruno at modulix wrote:
 > as soon as you say "interpreted, scripting", peoples think "not
 > serious".

Cameron Laird wrote:
 > I *think* you're proposing that,
 > were Guido more knowledgeable, he would have created a Python
 > language that's roughly as we know now, implemented it with
 > FASTER software ... and "to its own detriment".

Fredrik Lundh wrote:
 > define "scripting language".
 >
 > the only even remotely formal definition I've ever seen is "language
 > with designed to script an existing application, with limited support
 > for handling
 > its own state".  Early Tcl and JavaScript are scripting languages,
 > Python is not.

Kay Schluehr wrote:
 > Yes, it's Guidos master-plan to lock programmers into a slow language
 > in order to dominate them for decades.

Donn Cave wrote:
 > All I'm saying is that Python matches
 > what people think of as an interpreted language.  You can deny it, but
 > but it's going to look like you're playing games with words, and to no
 > real end, since no one could possibly be deceived for very long.

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
 > Describing C (or Lisp) as "compiled" and Python as "interpreted" is to
 > paint with an extremely broad brush, both ignoring what actually
 > happens in fact, and giving a false impression about Python. It is
 > absolutely true to say that Python does not compile to machine code.
 > (At least not yet.) But it is also absolutely true that Python is
 > compiled. Why emphasise the interpreter, and therefore Python's
 > similarity to bash, rather than the compiler and Python's similarity
 > to (say) Java or Lisp?

Paul Boddie wrote:
 > Yes, I think that with optional static typing, it's quite likely that
 > we would see lots of unnecessary declarations and less reusable code
 > ("ints everywhere, everyone!"), so I think the point about not
 > providing people with certain features is a very interesting one,
 > since
 > people have had to make additional and not insignificant effort to
 > optimise for speed. One potential benefit is that should better tools
 > than optional static typing be considered and evaluated, the "ints
 > everywhere!" line of thinking could prove to be something of a dead
 > end
 > in all but the most specialised applications. Consequently, the Python
 > platform could end up better off, providing superior tools for
 > optimising performance whilst not compromising the feel of the
 > language
 > and environment.

Torsten Bronger wrote:
 > By the way, this is my main concern about optional static typing: It
 > may change the target group, i.e. it may move Python closer to those
 > applications where speed really matters, which again would have an
 > effect on what will be considered Pythonic.

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
 > The "Python is both interpreted and compiled" camp, who
 > believe that both steps are equally important, and to
 > raise one over the other in importance is misleading.
 > That's why Sun doesn't describe Java as interpreted,
 > but as byte-code compiled. They did that before they
 > had JIT compilers to compile to machine code.

Bruno Desthuilliers wrote:
 > It's not a "scripting" language, and it's not interpreted.


It will all be sorted out once and for all in Python 3000: The Reckoning