Wrong on multiple counts, starting with calling Lisp "LISP". I could go on line by line and show an incorrect assumption or just plain FUD (on both languages bt

Wrong on multiple counts, starting with calling Lisp "LISP". I could go on line by line and show an incorrect assumption or just plain FUD (on both languages btw): LISP's most-used datatype is the list, but strings are also a basic type, and dictionaries are supported to some degree through association lists. FUD. Lists are not the most used datatype, at least by this Lisper, classes are. Dictionaries are supported fully as hash-tables. Association lists are usually written when testing stuff in the shell, but quickly made into a more robust datatype. Documentation String .. Python has apparently copied this straight from LISP, as it has the same feature (also at the module and class levels) Yes, same in Lisp. Classs and packages also take docstrings. I can't think of any top-level definition form in Lisp that doesn't take docstrings. Exception Handling .. LISP can achieve a limited sort of exception handling through "catch" and related operators Lisp has the condition system that inspired Aspect Oriented Programming. Lisp condition system is still the envy of everything else out there. People should really start learning things before they write authoritative texts on them. Multiple Namespaces .. Multiple namespaces are central to Python; every Python module gets its own namespace, with a simple syntax (module.varname or module.funcname) for referring to objects therein. LISP packages are essentially equivalent to Python modules in this respect. And he misses his chance to bitch about the one thing that's imperfect about Common Lisp :-P LISP uses CLOS, which is a fairly (but not completely) standard object extension to LISP. Was this written before 1994? That was the last time this sentence could have been correct. Forced myself to read this just to debunk it.