merits of Lisp vs Python

[Mark Tarver]

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

[Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch]

In <7x************ @ruckus.brouhah a.com>, Paul Rubin wrote:

Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch <bj****@gmx.net writes:

>FYI: Here's how Nemerle does macros: http://nemerle.org/Macros

I guess you can't really transform Nemerle into a completely different
language, but it is at least interesting to see such a feature in language
with a more complex syntax than Lisp.

Nobody seems to concerned that Haskell lacks macros. What's up with that?

Hm, right from the Nemerle macro page linked above:

We are following them in the direction of much more powerful, and at the
same time more secure (type-safe) solutions like Haskell Template
Meta-programming.

So there seems to be something macro-like for Haskell.

Ciao,
Marc 'BlackJack' Rintsch

[André Thieme]

Fred Gilham schrieb:

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrites:

>André Thieme <ad************ *************** *@justmail.dewr ites:

>>Instead of function = memoize(functio n)
one could just say: memoize(functio n).

In Python you'd say

@memoize
def function(): ...

But in Lisp you'd write the function, say, "Damn, I need to memoize
this sucker," and evaluate

(memoize 'function)

and the function would be memoized.

I suspect you could even do this "while the program was running" from
something like SLIME. Basically the memoize macro changes the
function cell of the symbol, so from that point all the calls to the
function would be to the memoized version.

You don't even need to say 'function
(memoize function) would be enough.
And yes, you can memoize functions while the program is running.
And you don't need a tool like slime for it. Lisp already offers ways
for doing that.
André
--

[Christophe]

André Thieme a écrit :

You don't even need to say 'function
(memoize function) would be enough.
And yes, you can memoize functions while the program is running.
And you don't need a tool like slime for it. Lisp already offers ways
for doing that.

In Python while the program is running :

import module
module.function = memoize(module. function)

[jayessay]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrites:

jayessay <no****@foo.com writes:

Maybe not bleeding edge, but more modern than CL in my opinion.

Odd, caml is even older than CL.

You'd have to compare (say) OCaml to CL if it's dialect against
dialect. If you're going to bring in the earlier ML family you also
have to bring in Lisp 1.5, which goes much further back than CL.

Fair enough. But really, I don't see any of these things as
particularly "modern" (whatever that means) or groundbreaking.
Certainly not at this point.

Also, there is the issue of whether there even is a "continual
progression", as in "moving up some ladder" towards something
"better", in the context of programming languages. All of that is
pretty fuzzy stuff, and plenty of CogSci work has shown these value
judgements in this context to be less than obvious in any meaning.

There is also a question about "old/new" wrt these value judgements.
Since Lisp is (admittedly some hand waving here) more or less lambda
calculus embodied, is it closer to say The Calculus or Group Theory
than to some random piece of technology?[1] If Lisp is "old
fashioned", then The Calculus and Group Theory are like _really_ old
fashioned. But does that lessen them in some way? What would that
be? Is some random "new" technique (say brute force iterative
techniques for calculus problems with computers) somehow "better"?
/Jon

1. Of course, the _implementation s_ are random pieces of technology.

--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com

[Harry George]

"JS******@gmail .com" <JS******@gmail .comwrites:

Kay Schluehr wrote:

is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
rapidly replacing Python.

Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
(for any reason) can look quite impressive. I've see data suggesting
Ruby is replacing Perl and maybe Java. But I've yet to see data which
shows people dropping Python and moving to Ruby. Where do I find that
data?
--
Harry George
PLM Engineering Architecture

[jayessay]

Paul Rubin <http://ph****@NOSPAM.i nvalidwrites:

If you say foo.frob() in Python, that's supposed to look up 'frob' in
a dictionary hanging off of foo. You can modify the contents of this
dictionary any time you want.

Unless I'm missing something this looks absolutely dead easy to
implement in Lisp and with a very little macrology you would have the
syntax as well. I'm not sure how this makes one or the other "more
dynamic".

The Lisp equivalent would be some generic function (frob foo)...

I would say the Lisp equivalent would be to literally do exactly the
same thing. Of course, as you say, maybe doing this doesn't actually
make any sense and so it wouldn't get done...
/Jon

--
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com

[André Thieme]

Steven D'Aprano schrieb:

Yes. But you can't redefine 1+2 in Python, at least not without hacking
the interpreter. Can you redefine (+ 1 2) in Lisp?

It is possible as was pointed out.
If anyone would do it, he/she would do it inside a package.
Then you would write:
(package:+ 1 2)

So in real world programs there is no danger.
In Python I could just say
def list():
return 30

and won't get a warning. In Lisp I would at least have to shadow +
explicitely.
In Python it can't happen because + is not a function.
And what do you do if you want to pass + as a HOF?
André
--

[André Thieme]

mystilleef schrieb:

Ken Tilton wrote:

>Lisp has all the cool qualities you like in your pets, plus native
compilation in most implementations , plus maturity and a standard, plus
a better OO, plus macros, plus a dozen more small wins. Including
automatic indentation. :)

Better OO? You mean the one that doesn't support basic encapsulation
and is retardedly cumbersome to use? There's a reason I said, I'd never
use Lisp for OO not even when I'm high. Gimme Python, Eiffel or
Smalltalk anyday, not the retarded add-on package bolted on CL.

What do you mean with "encapsulat ion" in this context?
I am looking for something that Pythons or Smalltalks OO system have
which isn't in Lisps...
André
--

[Juan R.]

Harry George ha escrito:

Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
(for any reason) can look quite impressive. I've see data suggesting
Ruby is replacing Perl and maybe Java. But I've yet to see data which
shows people dropping Python and moving to Ruby. Where do I find that
data?

No _scientific_ data but TIOBE Dec index shows an increase of 9x on
Ruby, 1x for Python and -4x for LISP [1]. More:

"There is only 1 month to go before TIOBE announces its 'programming
language of the year 2006'... Ruby remains to be top favorite for the
title."

Look also to Google Trends [2, 3]. One can notice further increase for
Ruby and slight decreasing for Python.

[1] http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm

[2]
http://www.google.com/trends?q=ruby+...o=all&date=all

http://www.google.com/trends?q=ruby+...o=all&date=all

[Ken Tilton]

Harry George wrote:

"JS******@gmail .com" <JS******@gmail .comwrites:

>>Kay Schluehr wrote:

>>>is rapidly replacing Perl, and Ruby is simultaneously and even more
rapidly replacing Python.

Really? Given its small base, the percentage increases in Ruby use
(for any reason) can look quite impressive. I've see data suggesting
Ruby is replacing Perl and maybe Java. But I've yet to see data which
shows people dropping Python and moving to Ruby. Where do I find that
data?

You missed it? Google fight:

http://www.googlefight.com/index.php...hon&word2=Ruby

Python wins, 74 to 69.3. And there is no Monty Ruby to help.

ken

--
Algebra: http://www.tilton-technology.com/LispNycAlgebra1.htm

"Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five
years, Doctor, and I'm happy to state I finally
won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd

"I'll say I'm losing my grip, and it feels terrific."
-- Smiling husband to scowling wife, New Yorker cartoon