3 ms·

is he just now becoming aware of it? it seems he had no idea something like sml existed when he first created python. i am sure he had heard of lisp/scheme but

is he just now becoming aware of it? it seems he had no idea something like sml existed when he first created python. i am sure he had heard of lisp/scheme but probably ignored it.

coldtea 8y ago
Thank god, else we wouldn't have Python but another ML or Lisp variant that nobody (statistically speaking) uses...
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  And all this time I thought R was the programming language that statistically speaking people used.
- nikofeyn 8y ago
  i don't understand your snark. do you honestly think python, as a programming language, is superior to something like racket or f#? these languages are newer than python of course, but the point is that they are representative of what we could be using.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >i don't understand your snark It's simple, it was added to counter-balance the smug ascertainment of Guido's ignorance, and the taken-for-granted assumption that we'd be so much better if he modeled Python more after ML/Lisp/etc. >do you honestly think python, as a programming language, is superior to something like racket or f#? No, I think the subject is moot. Python has been adopted and is widely successful for being Python. We had MLs and Schemes/Lisps available before and after Python and they didn't manage to get traction. Why do you think having the original Python be more like these would help its case? Even if the result was a "better language" in the sense you think Racket or F# are, those are still niche, and there's all the reasons to believe Python would be too if it followed their model. So, it's not "if only Python was ML/Lisp like we would now have an equally successful but better Python!". It's more likely "if Python was ML/Lisp it would still be niche today, and we wouldn't have a language with the characteristics that people love in Python and adopted it for, but yet another ML or Lisp version".

is he just now becoming aware of it? it seems he had no idea something like sml existed when he first created python. i am sure he had heard of lisp/scheme but probably ignored it.

coldtea 8y ago

Thank god, else we wouldn't have Python but another ML or Lisp variant that nobody (statistically speaking) uses...

DonHopkins 8y ago
And all this time I thought R was the programming language that statistically speaking people used.
nikofeyn 8y ago
i don't understand your snark. do you honestly think python, as a programming language, is superior to something like racket or f#? these languages are newer than python of course, but the point is that they are representative of what we could be using.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >i don't understand your snark It's simple, it was added to counter-balance the smug ascertainment of Guido's ignorance, and the taken-for-granted assumption that we'd be so much better if he modeled Python more after ML/Lisp/etc. >do you honestly think python, as a programming language, is superior to something like racket or f#? No, I think the subject is moot. Python has been adopted and is widely successful for being Python. We had MLs and Schemes/Lisps available before and after Python and they didn't manage to get traction. Why do you think having the original Python be more like these would help its case? Even if the result was a "better language" in the sense you think Racket or F# are, those are still niche, and there's all the reasons to believe Python would be too if it followed their model. So, it's not "if only Python was ML/Lisp like we would now have an equally successful but better Python!". It's more likely "if Python was ML/Lisp it would still be niche today, and we wouldn't have a language with the characteristics that people love in Python and adopted it for, but yet another ML or Lisp version".