5 ms·

I think most people switching from Lisp to Python do so for practical reasons. I suspect Peter Norvig probably wouldn't use as much Python if he didn't have to

by drcode 16y ago

I think most people switching from Lisp to Python do so for practical reasons. I suspect Peter Norvig probably wouldn't use as much Python if he didn't have to adapt to the Google culture. I think Python is a surprisingly nice language in many ways. It falls into the category of being an "acceptable Lisp". But I think most Lispers still prefer the real thing and only use Python when they need to be pragmatic.

poet 16y ago
I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.
- drcode 16y ago
  Yeah, the lambda issue in Python is definitely not very Lispy. But I think even though Ruby offers a bit more for Lispers, I just don't like the design of the language as much in general as Python. If I don't code Python for a year and have to delve into it again it takes only a few seconds to get back to speed again. In Ruby, on the other hand, I always forget how the blocks & variables behave and am thrown by the strange predicate syntax, making this far more unpleasant.
  - ngvrnd 16y ago
    I agree, I like Ruby better both for the syntax, the cleaner oo integration, and so on -- but a year and a half away from each, I can pick up the Python again a lot quicker. And python is friendly to scripting, low-level and embedded applications, which Ruby (Matz) is not interested in.
- DanWeinreb 16y ago
  I agree. But if you find yourself with an employer who requires that everything be written one of a few languages, and Lisp isn't on the menu, I'd take Python over C++ in a heartbeat.
- cdavid 16y ago
  At least P. Norvig things python is an acceptable language, if not LISP. I think the point about being optimized for small teams is a significant one. Also, because LISP appeals mostly to programmers, but it often "repeals" people with expert knowledge (e.g. scientists without a strong programming background). P. Norvig mentioned that when he converted his AI book from Lisp to python code examples, it seemed much more natural to most people,
  - drunkpotato 16y ago
    I think you meant "repels", unless you meant "refudiates", though perhaps your finger stumbled in the middle of "repls".
    - cdavid 16y ago
      I have at least the excuse of not being a native speaker, contrary to S. Palin :) Thanks for the correction.
    - swolchok 16y ago
      "refudiate" isn't a word (though it appears to be a Palin-ism -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Refudiate http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Refudiate). Perhaps you meant "repudiate?"
- bad_user 16y ago
  > Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp At least these languages (that I know of) have macros: http://boo.codehaus.org http://nemerle.org http://www.perl6.org
  - poet 16y ago
    If your language doesn't have Lisp syntax (or more precisely, a lack of syntax entirely) writing macros will be very unpleasant. How are you going to logically think about manipulating the structure of a program that looks like C# or Perl? Macros are already difficult enough to get right as is, without introducing the problem of syntax. Those languages don't have macros any more than Python has a lambda.
    - chromatic 16y ago
      How are you going to logically think about manipulating the structure of a program that looks like C# or Perl? In Perl 6, you extend the active grammar within a delimited scope.
      - poet 16y ago
        My point still holds, just replace manipulating the structure of a program with manipulating the structure of a grammar. In no way is that comparable to manipulating raw parse trees.
        bad_user 16y ago
        But you are manipulating parse trees: surely you have to add new grammar rules to the parser, but then the macro itself does just that. Furthermore, when adding syntax you are not limited to a Lisp-style grammar.
        draegtun 16y ago
        Furthermore, when adding syntax you are not limited to a Lisp-style grammar And this is a very good point because you can add things like XML grammar to Perl6: http://github.com/krunen/xml http://github.com/krunen/xml
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
silentbicycle 16y ago
I think the phrase "acceptable Lisp" itself needs to go away. It's caused quite a bit more heat than light. Python is a great language, sure, but it's not a Lisp, and it's best appreciated on its own terms. Both because Lisp and Python really aren't very similar, and because people coming to Python with transliterated Lisp idioms are going to be disappointed.

by drcode 16y ago

poet 16y ago

I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.

drcode 16y ago
Yeah, the lambda issue in Python is definitely not very Lispy. But I think even though Ruby offers a bit more for Lispers, I just don't like the design of the language as much in general as Python. If I don't code Python for a year and have to delve into it again it takes only a few seconds to get back to speed again. In Ruby, on the other hand, I always forget how the blocks & variables behave and am thrown by the strange predicate syntax, making this far more unpleasant.
- ngvrnd 16y ago
  I agree, I like Ruby better both for the syntax, the cleaner oo integration, and so on -- but a year and a half away from each, I can pick up the Python again a lot quicker. And python is friendly to scripting, low-level and embedded applications, which Ruby (Matz) is not interested in.
DanWeinreb 16y ago
I agree. But if you find yourself with an employer who requires that everything be written one of a few languages, and Lisp isn't on the menu, I'd take Python over C++ in a heartbeat.
cdavid 16y ago
At least P. Norvig things python is an acceptable language, if not LISP. I think the point about being optimized for small teams is a significant one. Also, because LISP appeals mostly to programmers, but it often "repeals" people with expert knowledge (e.g. scientists without a strong programming background). P. Norvig mentioned that when he converted his AI book from Lisp to python code examples, it seemed much more natural to most people,
- drunkpotato 16y ago
  I think you meant "repels", unless you meant "refudiates", though perhaps your finger stumbled in the middle of "repls".
  - cdavid 16y ago
    I have at least the excuse of not being a native speaker, contrary to S. Palin :) Thanks for the correction.
  - swolchok 16y ago
    "refudiate" isn't a word (though it appears to be a Palin-ism -- http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Refudiate http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Refudiate). Perhaps you meant "repudiate?"
bad_user 16y ago
> Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp At least these languages (that I know of) have macros: http://boo.codehaus.org http://nemerle.org http://www.perl6.org
- poet 16y ago
  If your language doesn't have Lisp syntax (or more precisely, a lack of syntax entirely) writing macros will be very unpleasant. How are you going to logically think about manipulating the structure of a program that looks like C# or Perl? Macros are already difficult enough to get right as is, without introducing the problem of syntax. Those languages don't have macros any more than Python has a lambda.
  - chromatic 16y ago
    How are you going to logically think about manipulating the structure of a program that looks like C# or Perl? In Perl 6, you extend the active grammar within a delimited scope.
    - poet 16y ago
      My point still holds, just replace manipulating the structure of a program with manipulating the structure of a grammar. In no way is that comparable to manipulating raw parse trees.
      - bad_user 16y ago
        But you are manipulating parse trees: surely you have to add new grammar rules to the parser, but then the macro itself does just that. Furthermore, when adding syntax you are not limited to a Lisp-style grammar.
        draegtun 16y ago
        Furthermore, when adding syntax you are not limited to a Lisp-style grammar And this is a very good point because you can add things like XML grammar to Perl6: http://github.com/krunen/xml http://github.com/krunen/xml
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

silentbicycle 16y ago

I think the phrase "acceptable Lisp" itself needs to go away. It's caused quite a bit more heat than light. Python is a great language, sure, but it's not a Lisp, and it's best appreciated on its own terms. Both because Lisp and Python really aren't very similar, and because people coming to Python with transliterated Lisp idioms are going to be disappointed.