[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Well, his Viaweb company was founded in about '95, right? So he probably
just
used Lisp because Python wasn't as well known yet. ;-)
David
That is what I thought too. It makes sense but I wasn't sure. Still
ain't.
The problem
Kirk Job Sluder schrieb:
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might be a great self experience for some great hackers but just
annoying for others who used to work with modular standard librarys and
think that the border of the language and an application should be
somehow fixed
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Kirk Job Sluder schrieb:
In what way do lisp macros prevent the creation of modular libraries?
Common Lisp does does have mechanisms for library namespaces, and in
practice a macro contained within a library is not that much different
from a
Kay Schluehr [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This might be a great self experience for some great hackers but just
annoying for others who used to work with modular standard librarys and
think that the border of the language and an application should be
somehow fixed to enable those.
In what way
Op 2005-07-07, Philippe C. Martin schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Almost sounds like a racist comment - sorry if I misunderstood
I'll clarify. A lot of the time I hear arguments against
features that boils down to.
1) I don't need it.
2) Having the feature will make my job more difficult.
jayessay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Someone recently remarked that good Lisp macros are basically
executable pseudo code. I think that is pretty much exactly right
and is a pretty good sound bite distillation of what it is all
about.
Several years
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll clarify. A lot of the time I hear arguments against
features that boils down to.
1) I don't need it.
2) Having the feature will make my job more difficult.
3) I don't understand the merrits of the feature or I
Terry Reedy wrote:
jayessay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Someone recently remarked that good Lisp macros are basically
executable pseudo code. I think that is pretty much exactly right
and is a pretty good sound bite distillation of what it is all
about.
Terry Reedy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
jayessay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1. Someone recently remarked that good Lisp macros are basically
executable pseudo code. I think that is pretty much exactly right
and is a pretty good sound bite distillation of
Antoon Pardon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'll clarify. A lot of the time I hear arguments against
features that boils down to.
It seems that you've lost some of the intent during the boiling.
1) I don't need it.
Is that what you get out of the oft-used What's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that questions like 'What lang is fastest to develop
in?'
are hard to answer definitively.
FWIW, Google's answer to that question is C++, Java, and Python. For
any given problem, any of the three are acceptable. Each programmer or
engineering team gets
So Lisp is for really good programmers, and Python is for mediocre
programmers ?
Best Regards,
Fuzzy
http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fuzzyman:
So Lisp is for really good programmers, and Python is for
mediocre programmers ?
Python is *also* for mediocre programmers. I see this as a
strength, not as a weakness.
Michele Simionato
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
On 6 Jul 2005 00:30:34 -0700, Raymond Hettinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power and
expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach for the
stars.
+1 QOTW
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Fair enough ;-)
I'd like to discover the power of Lisp, but I have a limited amount of
time to sink into programming... so maybe I'm better off putting my
energies and imagination into Python.
*A language is a medium of expression.* - Paul Graham
All the best.
Fuzzy
Op 2005-07-06, Michele Simionato schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fuzzyman:
So Lisp is for really good programmers, and Python is for
mediocre programmers ?
Python is *also* for mediocre programmers. I see this as a
strength, not as a weakness.
But sometimes I get the impression people want it
You don't say how long it took to develop the macros but
you should see what kind of website an experienced Zope/Plone
programmer can whip up in a few minutes.
Acceleration in programming has always been about the Standard
Library (not only Python's standard library but also your
standard
Larry Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You don't say how long it took to develop the macros but
you should see what kind of website an experienced Zope/Plone
programmer can whip up in a few minutes.
Zope/Plone (as frameworks) represent exactly the kinds of DSLs people
have been building with
Tom Anderson wrote:
Perhaps the real question, then, is which language allows you to delete
lines of code most quickly.
No, then the question becomes which language allows you to quickly
write very many lines of code which then have to be deleted.
Of course, writing those lines manually
[Raymond Hettinger]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It got me curious if Lisp is inherently faster to develop complex
apps in.
With Lisp or Forth, a master programmer has unlimited power and
expressiveness. With Python, even a regular guy can reach for the
stars.
A few years ago, I much
Raymond Hettinger wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that questions like 'What lang is fastest to develop
in?'
are hard to answer definitively.
FWIW, Google's answer to that question is C++, Java, and Python. For
any given problem, any of the three are acceptable. Each
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 08:27:55 -0500,
Larry Bates [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ reusable, stable, debugged, and documented libraries are a Good
Thing ]
Absolutely.
Two related stories from my days working as a software engineer for a
large telecomm company. Both stories begin with the annual
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been reading the beloved Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters.
He claims he developed a web app at light speed using Lisp and lots
of macros.
That was the original yahoo store.
It got me curious if Lisp is inherently faster to develop complex
François Pinard wrote:
My feeling at the time was that Scheme is a very fast language to write
into, and in which one can implement new concepts cleanly and compactly.
Maybe Python is a bit slower to write, but this is compensated by the
fact Python is more legible when it comes to later
Hi.
Instead of listing the difference ..here are some things that are
COMMON to both common lisp and python :
1.Dynamic typing.
2.garbage collection
3.powerful data structures
4.good object systems. (here people from lisp usually claim that clos
is the most powerful object system...but i think
Rocco Moretti wrote:
Actually, Google's answer to that question is something called ILOG
CPLEX,
We use this. It's a library / command line tool (not a language) for
doing optimization - linear programming, quadratic programming,
mixed-integer programming etc. Very cool and very, very
Almost sounds like a racist comment - sorry if I misunderstood
Antoon Pardon wrote:
Op 2005-07-06, Michele Simionato schreef [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Fuzzyman:
So Lisp is for really good programmers, and Python is for
mediocre programmers ?
Python is *also* for mediocre programmers. I
I've been reading the beloved Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters.
He claims he developed a web app at light speed using Lisp and lots
of macros.
It got me curious if Lisp
is inherently faster to develop complex apps in. It would seem if you
could create your own language in Lisp using macros
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading the beloved Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters.
He claims he developed a web app at light speed using Lisp and lots
of macros.
It got me curious if Lisp
is inherently faster to develop complex apps in. It would seem if you
could create your own
Very hard to say.
LISP has OOP too, Google for CLOS.
Operator overloading is something to avoid anyway, IMHO, just like
static typing is something to avoid if you need fast development, on
schedule and the like.
LISP has one thing that Python does not have: LISP code is LISP data.
A thorough
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been reading the beloved Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters.
He claims he developed a web app at light speed using Lisp and lots
of macros.
It got me curious if Lisp
is inherently faster to develop complex apps in. It would seem if you
could create your own
Well, his Viaweb company was founded in about '95, right? So he probably just
used Lisp because Python wasn't as well known yet. ;-)
David
That is what I thought too. It makes sense but I wasn't sure. Still
ain't.
The problem is that questions like 'What lang is fastest to develop
in?'
are
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem is that questions like 'What lang is fastest to develop
in?' are hard to answer definitively.
That's because the answer depends on lots of context such what is the
problem domain and who is the programmer. Really, it's an impossible
question to answer.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I've been reading the beloved Paul Graham's Hackers and Painters.
He claims he developed a web app at light speed using Lisp and lots
of macros.
It got me curious if Lisp
is inherently faster to develop complex apps in. It would seem if you
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Well, his Viaweb company was founded in about '95, right? So he probably just
used Lisp because Python wasn't as well known yet. ;-)
David
That is what I thought too. It makes sense but I wasn't sure. Still
ain't.
The problem is that questions
35 matches
Mail list logo
