On Dec 3, 9:11 pm, Michael Sparks <[email protected]> wrote: > On Friday 03 December 2010 10:30:27 Robert Berry wrote: > > > Macros. MACROS! > > Yes, go off and use Excel why don't you. (Yes, I do know what Lisp Macros are) > > Actually that's an interesting thought - there are many more hundreds if not > thousands or hundreds of thousands of Excel macros written in the world, used > by people and in use by people, solving real problems than there are lisp > macros making people's lives easier. (Much as I hate excel, that's one hell of > a fly in the ointment in the "macros" argument)
Seriously, if you know what Lisp macros are then you'll know that this is a strawman argument. The only thing Lisp Macro's have in common with Excel Macros is the name! Excel is also more popular than Python, does that make Python any less useful? > Here's a hint, MIT moved away from a lisp type language for a reason, > investigate it. Where did they go to ? Python. MIT moved away from Scheme to Python because of a shift in emphasis of their course, as part of this shift they now teach robotics rather than understanding code and algorithms to the metal. Python happens to be a reasonable language with a suitable robotics library for teaching the course, hence their choice (see Sussman's comments if you don't believe me). > If you think clojure is very similar to python you're missing something very > important. In python, the syntax _matters_ - it's designed to be human > readable. The syntax of a lisp type language is an exercise in human and > programmer hostility. Python receives much criticism for its use of whitespace, Lisp receives criticism for its parentheses... neither are seen as issues to those who use the language. Both arguments are just FUD spreading. S-expressions though unfamiliar at first are easy to write and read. Parentheses are intuitive and provide an unambiguous and consistent semantics. S-expressions also make it significantly easier for editors to provide structural editing support (see diva-scheme and paredit for examples). Though there's no reason these editing modes couldn't exist for non-lisp languages, they'd be significantly more complex; the sad reality is they don't currently exist outside of Lisp. In my experience of teaching Clojure to others, no-one has struggled with the language syntax; it is trivial and can be learned in 5 minutes. The hardest part is usually in making the transition from an imperative mindset to a functional one. One Lisp, Dylan, did develop an ALGOL like syntax but in doing so lost much of the simplicity and power in its macro system. On 3 December 2010 10:28, Michael Sparks <[email protected]> wrote: > > I personally view this as spam on the python list. I'm sorry to hear that. If other members of this list agree, then I'll stop my (infrequent) posting information on Clojure events here. The reason I posted here in the first place is that in my experience the Python community are as whole interested in new languages and technologies. Clojure has much in common with Python, with its functional constructs, all round pragmatism and cohesive design, so I'd hope people here might be interested. Also your willingness to engage in an unprovoked debate about s- expressions on the Python list, seems also to indicate you're not too concerned about such talk being considered spam. Anyway, Clojure has many good things to say for it, and ignoring it simply because of its use of parentheses is like ignoring Python for its use of whitespace. I encourage anyone interested in finding out more to come along to our meeting. > Yours-emphatically-but-respectfully, > (and nowhere near as harshly as text comes over ! :-) Likewise. All the best, R. -- To post: [email protected] To unsubscribe: [email protected] Feeds: http://groups.google.com/group/python-north-west/feeds More options: http://groups.google.com/group/python-north-west
