Mark Tarver wrote: > Paul Rubin wrote: > > "Mark Tarver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > > > think that one has over the other? > > > > <http://google.com/search?q=python+lisp&btnI=I'm+feeling+lucky> > > Thanks; a quick read of your reference to Norvig's analysis > > http://norvig.com/python-lisp.html > > seems to show that Python is a cut down (no macros) version of Lisp > with a worse performance.
By that standard, every other mainstream dynamically typed language for you is a cut-down version of Lisp with worse performance. > The only substantial advantage I can see is > that GUI, and Web libraries are standard. Somehow you conveniently miss the fact that he stated that it is ... 1. An excellent language for his intended use. 2. Easy to use and learn. 3. Easier to read than Lisp. 4. Looks more like pseudo code than does Lisp. Here is a quote from the same Peter Norvig "Python has been an important part of Google since the beginning, and remains so as the system grows and evolves. Today dozens of Google engineers use Python, and we're looking for more people with skills in this language." http://www.python.org/Quotes.html > This confirms my suspicion > that Lisp is losing out to newbies because of its > lack of standard support for the things many people want to do. You confirm things too easily :-). -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
