Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

在 2006年12月8日星期五 UTC+8下午7:07:09，Mark Tarver写道： > How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you > think that one has over the other? > > Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is > just a question for my general education. > > Mark 12 years ago.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Op 2017-09-30, Marko Rauhamaa schreef : > Robert L. is only trolling. He uses fake technical comments to spread > white supremacy in his signatures. My apologies. Stephan -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 9:03:32 PM UTC+1, Stephan Houben wrote: > Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : > > (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) > > ===> > > 9 > > > > In Python? > > >>> sum([2, 3, 4]) > 9 Dow you have to keep replying to this out and out racist, as

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Stephan Houben : > Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : >> (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) >> ===> >> 9 >> >> In Python? > sum([2, 3, 4]) > 9 Robert L. is only trolling. He uses fake technical comments to spread white supremacy in his

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Op 2017-09-27, Robert L. schreef : > (sequence-fold + 0 #(2 3 4)) > ===> > 9 > > In Python? >>> sum([2, 3, 4]) 9 -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Jorge Godoy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) writes: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John J. Lee wrote: Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: Is it possible to ask mod_python to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: [...] mod_python relies on an unsupported feature of Python, namely multiple interpreters -- risk of more pain with C extensions. As usual, those bashing up on mod_python tend not to

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 15, 7:22 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: [...] mod_pythonrelies on an unsupported feature of Python, namely multiple interpreters -- risk of more pain with C

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John J. Lee wrote: Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes to serve requests, rather than separate interpreters? We couldn't see a way. That's what CGI does.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John J. Lee wrote: Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes to serve requests, rather than separate interpreters? We

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) writes: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John J. Lee wrote: Graham Dumpleton [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: Is it possible to ask mod_python to start separate processes to serve requests,

OLPC vs. mobile phones (was Re: merits of Lisp vs Python)

Gabriel Genellina wrote: En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: The electronic gadget people need in the developing world is a mobile phone not a computer. What for? That requires a phone company, installed antennas everywhere, and available power

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Gabriel Genellina [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribiŽ�: [...] ill-conceived idea (not because of Python, note!). The electronic gadget people need in the developing world is a mobile phone not a computer. What for?

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - they all have platform/version incompatibility problems. I just spent three days

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John J. Lee wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - they all have platform/version incompatibility problems. I just

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John J. Lee wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble with version issues, especially with C components called from Python. MySQLdb, M2Crypto, SSL - they all have

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 11, 12:31 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John J. Lee) wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: John J. Lee wrote: John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [...] Python, on the other hand, is uphill all the way. Constant trouble with version issues, especially with C components

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Alex Martelli [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | later sold for mucho dinero) is an unabashed fan of Python; the XO | (nee One Laptop Per Child, OLPC, and once known as the $100 laptop) | uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's | slated to be

Python-friendly hosting (was Re: merits of Lisp vs Python)

On 9 Mar, 02:32, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Dedicated server offerings] I'm not so familiar with dedicated servers, being unlikely to buy into that kind of hosting any time soon - I'm not running a business with serious reliability/control/uptime constraints where I could justify

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: (nee One Laptop Per Child, OLPC, and once known as the $100 laptop) uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's slated to be the most widely distributed Python distro if it hits even half of its

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 9, 2007, at 1:10 PM, Tim Bradshaw wrote: On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: (nee One Laptop Per Child, OLPC, and once known as the $100 laptop) uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's slated to be the most widely

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

En Fri, 09 Mar 2007 16:10:51 -0300, Tim Bradshaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: On 2007-03-09 07:00:06 +, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alex Martelli) said: (nee One Laptop Per Child, OLPC, and once known as the $100 laptop) uses Python as its preferred (only?-) application language, and it's slated

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: Ken Tilton wrote: John Nagle wrote: Turns out John is having quite a tough time with Python web hosting (the thread has split off to a c.l.p only fork), so I'm going to cut him some slack. Maybe with some lovin' we can woo him over to c.l.l ;) Been there, done

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Mar 8, 5:23 am, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Brian Adkins wrote: Ken Tilton wrote: John Nagle wrote: Turns out John is having quite a tough time with Python web hosting (the thread has split off to a c.l.p only fork), so I'm going to cut him some slack. Maybe with some lovin'

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 3/8/07, Dennis Lee Bieber [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:13:15 GMT, John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] declaimed the following in comp.lang.python: When starting out with this project, I'd made the assumption that Python was a stable, working, well-supported technology,

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any *real* hosting provider is going to support whatever language and environment I tell them to, because I'm going to pay them a lot of money for excellent support and if they give me any trouble I will go with someone who provides what I want. Hosting

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Care to name a real hosting provider that cares whether Python works? http://www.webfaction.com/ -- Aahz ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) * http://www.pythoncraft.com/ I disrespectfully agree. --SJM --

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aahz) writes: Care to name a real hosting provider that cares whether Python works? http://www.webfaction.com/ Thanks! This is good to know about. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: Chris Mellon [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Any *real* hosting provider is going to support whatever language and environment I tell them to, because I'm going to pay them a lot of money for excellent support and if they give me any trouble I will go with someone who provides what

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: There's denial in the Python community that this is a problem, but it is. The Ruby on Rails people get it; they work to provide a seamless experience for web developers. Which is why their market share is way up over two years ago. I do know that a

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

George Sakkis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language ^^^ You keep using that phrase. I don't think it means what you think it means. [Vizzini has just cut the rope The Dread Pirate Roberts is climbing up]

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: George Sakkis wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Lisp is the only industrial strength language Neither Lisp nor Python is an industrial strength language. The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: Neither Lisp nor Python is an industrial strength language. The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: John Nagle wrote: Neither Lisp nor Python is an industrial strength language. The infrastructure is too weak. Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: John Nagle wrote: If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? If you want to post jokes, try rec.humor.funny.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any _real_ hosting providers? Because what

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

alex23 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any _real_ hosting

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

alex23 wrote: John Nagle wrote: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any _real_ hosting

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins wrote: alex23 wrote: John Nagle wrote: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux distros? Or with any

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: Brian Adkins wrote: alex23 wrote: John Nagle wrote: Hosting providers and distro makers aren't concerned over whether Python works. They care if C, C++, Java, PHP, and Perl work, but not Python or LISP. Ask them. Do you have any real experience with recent linux

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists handle all the OS stuff so you can concentrate on your

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

the thread to Why don't shared hosting companies treat Python customers better? or something along those lines. We seem to have drifted from Princess Bride quotes and the merits of Lisp vs. Python ;) -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: Brian Adkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists handle all the OS stuff so you can

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: Paul Rubin wrote: Brian Adkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: With prices of dedicated servers and virtual private servers so cheap, why would anyone get a hosting account without root access? Because it turns you into a sysadmin instead of letting specialists handle all the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

John Nagle wrote: Brian Adkins wrote: John Nagle wrote: If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? If you want to post

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Brian Adkins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This may sound like I'm baiting you, but it's a sincere question. If your experience with Perl was so good, why did you decide to pursue Python? Trouble free hosting and no problems in development - sounds like it worked out well for you. Er, because the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Ken Tilton wrote: John Nagle wrote: Brian Adkins wrote: John Nagle wrote: If you want to restart a debate, please go back and reply to some serious post in the thread - don't hijack mine for your own evil purposes and cut out the good parts - did you even see the movie? If you want

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So far? After a bit of pain getting started and finding decent docs (while waiting for the books to arrive) I've found the language quite easy to use. I haven't got into closures or macros yet - I need to get more familiar with the basics

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Hi all, On Dec 28 2006, 4:51 pm, Paddy3118 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [3] I thought it was particularly cool how Tcl could bolt on a class based object oriented system as a library. The word class isn't built into the language, but that kind of evaluator lets you add it. I have written about two notrivial

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paul Hummer wrote: I learned PHP for ease of web application development ... PHP is great for easily developing _insecure_ web applications. But if you want them not to leak like a sieve, things get a bit more complicated. --

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. - Paddy. --

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

[x-post removed] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Paddy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Paddy wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at That's already covered in the orginal thread. Same two newsgroups, same crowd of

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Paddy wrote: Carl Banks wrote: If you were so keen on avoiding a flame war, the first thing you should have done is to not cross-post this. I want to cover Pythonistas looking at Lisp and Lispers looking at Python because of the thread. The cross posting is not as flame bait. Then post a

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Ray wrote: Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? いいえ！ 違います。 -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Steven Haflich wrote: Ray wrote: Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? いいえ！ 違います。 iie! chigaimas. No, I beg to differ! (Hey, I'm in right the middle of preparing my Kanji-drilling Lisp program for distribution). --

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view

Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view of the other language; (deep

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. snip (I suspect this thread to be very short - even the original poster seems to have given up on the day he started the thread). I use both. And Java, and C++ too. Can one

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

. Java, PBASIC vs. C++, and while we're at it, SmallTalk vs. Assembler! This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. snip I use both. And Java, and C++ too. Can one really survive knowing just one language these days, anyway? I agree

Re: Anyone persuaded by merits of Lisp vs Python?

Paddy3118 wrote: This month there was/is a 1000+ long thread called: merits of Lisp vs Python In comp.lang.lisp. If you followed even parts of the thread, AND previously used only one of the languages AND (and this is the crucial bit), were persuaded to have a more positive view

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 23 Dec 2006 12:38:30 -0800, Fuzzyman wrote: Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you think that one has over the other? Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Fuzzyman ha escrito: Perhaps only with the addendum that although 'Lisp roolz', no-one uses for anything of relevance anymore and it is continuing it's geriatric decline into obscurity. ;-) I do not think that i cannot agree with the contrary of this but i do not think the contrary neither.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Lars Rune Nøstdal wrote: On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you think that one has over the other? Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is just a question for my general

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

All of you are nazis! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

defcon8 wrote: All of you are nazis! Hmmm... that might work. :-) Fuzzyman http://www.voidspace.org.uk/python/articles.shtml -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 03:07:09 -0800, Mark Tarver wrote: How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you think that one has over the other? Note I'm not a Python person and I have no axes to grind here. This is just a question for my general education. Mark Kill this

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: Anders J. Munch wrote: Let u(t) be the actual memory used by the program at time t. Let r(t) be the size of reachable memory at time t. Require that u(t) is a member of O(t - max{t'=t: r(t')}) There. That wasn't so hard, was it? That's quite a clever definition

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: Rob Thorpe wrote: Anders J. Munch wrote: Let u(t) be the actual memory used by the program at time t. Let r(t) be the size of reachable memory at time t. Require that u(t) is a member of O(t - max{t'=t: r(t')}) There. That wasn't so hard, was it? That's

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

jayessay wrote: Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to run

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: jayessay wrote: Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. Really? So how do you write a portable

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: jayessay wrote: Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. Really? So how do you write a portable

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Anders J. Munch wrote: jayessay wrote: Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: Anders J. Munch wrote: Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to run for unbounded lengths of time? You can't. The thing about the spec not defining GC is almost a bit of humour. No-one would use an implementation with no GC. The issue

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch wrote: Rob Thorpe wrote: Anders J. Munch wrote: Really? So how do you write a portable program in CL, that is to run for unbounded lengths of time? You can't. The thing about the spec not defining GC is almost a bit of humour. No-one would use an

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Anders J. Munch [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: jayessay wrote: Please note: GC is not part of CL's definition. It is likely not part of any Lisp's definition (for reasons that should be obvious), and for the same reasons likely not part of any language's definition. Really? Really. So

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on; you guys can't just leave this at 999 posts! Funny you should whine, i was just getting ready to sign off with: I noticed while singing the praises of auto-indentation that there was a shortcoming in The Greatest Feature Known to Editing source code, which

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Rob Thorpe wrote: Once you can do the above then you can phrase programs entirely in terms of composition of functions, which is what functional programming is about. There are many aspects to functional programming. Some languages (like Lisp and Python) are very impure and hardly encourage

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

This is not a response to any particular post, but rather to the general argument that macros are not as useful as we Lispers claim. Here is a fairly complete GUI RSS reader in 90 lines of Lisp (the GUI code itself is 90 lines, but it makes use of some RSS reading/writing code I had laying

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin a écrit : Rob Thorpe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Once you can do the above then you can phrase programs entirely in terms of composition of functions, which is what functional programming is about. Getting good performance though is problematic without being able to evaluate parts at

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: Mathias Panzenboeck a écrit : Rob Thorpe wrote: Mathias Panzenboeck wrote: Mark Tarver wrote: How do you compare Python to Lisp? What specific advantages do you think that one has over the other? Note I'm not a Python person and

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Kaz Kylheku a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers wrote: André Thieme a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers schrieb: (snip) Both are highly dynamic. Neither are declarative. Well, Lisp does support some declarative features in the ansi standard. If you go that way, there are declarative stuff in Python

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin schrieb: GC also gets rid of programs. There are programs you can write in C but not in Lisp, like device drivers that poke specific machine addresses. You are talking about an ANSI Common Lisp implementation. But nothing stops a vendor to deliver its CL with libs that support the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: +--- | Paul Rubin wrote: | [...] There are programs you can write in C but not in Lisp, | like device drivers that poke specific machine addresses. | | I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any | reason you couldn't | (poke

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strictly speaking, only first-class functions are required, and tail-recursion optimisation is only an implentation detail. Now it's obvious that when it comes to real-life-size programs, this is a *very* important detail !-) I don't buy this.

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I should assume you meant Common Lisp, but there isn't really any reason you couldn't (poke destination (peek source)) That breaks the reliability of GC. I'd say you're no longer writing in Lisp if you use

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin a écrit : Bruno Desthuilliers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Strictly speaking, only first-class functions are required, and tail-recursion optimisation is only an implentation detail. Now it's obvious that when it comes to real-life-size programs, this is a *very* important detail !-)

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Bill Atkins wrote: This is not a response to any particular post, but rather to the general argument that macros are not as useful as we Lispers claim. Here is a fairly complete GUI RSS reader in 90 lines of Lisp For comparison, here's how something with a similar API might be used from

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin wrote: Raffael Cavallaro [EMAIL PROTECTED]'espam-s'il-vous-plait-mac.com writes: For example, a common lisp with optional static typing on demand would be strictly more expressive than common lisp. But, take say, haskell; haskell's static typing is not optional (you can work

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Paul Rubin http://[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Kaz Kylheku [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Lisp just seems hopelessly old-fashioned to me these days. A modernized version would be cool, but I think the more serious Lisp-like language designers have moved on to newer ideas. What are some of

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: On 2006-12-16 13:58:37 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Why do you think that uniform syntax is necessary to provide new paradigms when it is equivalent to infix syntax? Because it doesn't require one to write a parser for each new syntax for each new

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What if eager impurity isn't the very nature of the problem but, rather, is the very nature of Tilton's chosen solution? That's the whole point which you keep missing - that a programming language is expressive precisely to the

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: After all, Haskell and OCaml are more popular that any given Lisp variant with similar features (e.g. pattern matching), AFAIK. What doublespeak! haskell and ocaml are more popular than any lisp library that tries to imitate

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: On 2006-12-17 07:54:28 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: What if eager impurity isn't the very nature of the problem but, rather, is the very nature of Tilton's chosen solution? That's the whole point which you keep missing - that a programming language is

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

Raffael Cavallaro wrote: haskell and ocaml are more popular than any lisp library that tries to imitate Haskell and ocaml. Implementing pattern matching does not mean imitating Haskell or OCaml. This only speaks to the relative unpopularity of imitating these features of haskell and ocaml

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:49:46 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: For example, when faced with a problem best solved using pattern matching in Lisp, most Lisp programmers would reinvent an ad-hoc, informally specified and bug-ridden pattern matcher of their own. No, I think most of us would

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On 2006-12-17 12:52:34 -0500, Jon Harrop [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Implementing pattern matching does not mean imitating Haskell or OCaml. We were explicitly comparing lisp with haskell and ocaml. Adding features built into haskell and ocaml but not present in ANSI common lisp would therefore

Re: merits of Lisp vs Python

On Sat, 16 Dec 2006 14:05:06 -0500 Kirk Sluder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: # And there is something that is missing here in arguing about computer # language notations in relationship to human language readability, or # correspondence to spoken language. I'm not writing code for another # human, I'm

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >