All worthwhile language features had been introduced by Lisp in the 1950s and any language released afterwards was obsolete at arrival.
Prove me wrong.
>>54750083
was reading a few articles on python v lisp
helped me out with a few ideas but can't remember what they were now (happens with programming) .. consensus is that most lisp programmers get a lot out of python
I like python because I encountered prolog & found it akin
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Lisp-programmers-think-of-Python
>>54750083
helps to read critical programming comparisons eg:
"I took a couple of AI programming classes some time ago, they were taught in Lisp. They were most enjoyable classes, and Lisp had a lot to do with that. A couple of years later I tried to take a followup class. This used to be taught in Lisp also. The instructor had changed, the GTA was gone, and the language had been replaced with Java. It was ugly, every bit of it. I dropped the class. Another year, another institution, again tried to take a followup class. This time the instructor had switched to TCL. Much much worse. "
similar thing happened to me prolog (poplog) .. went back, java
holy shit TCL? TCL I had looked at before finding python. TCL is very bad to look at
people complain about "whitespace" in python
seems to me that people want a complicated representation to look clever
with java - found myself typing all the time. found that it was a bad design, really --
why do the path names repeat? that is because of bad design
you need an IDE to program in java -- it NEEDS an IDE - you can only productive in java with an IDE.
>>54750083
"Basically, Python can be seen as a dialect of Lisp with “traditional” syntax … Python supports all of Lisp’s essential features except macros, and you don’t miss macros all that much because it does have eval, and operator overloading, and regular expression parsing, so some — but not all — of the use cases for macros are covered." http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/05/03/python-as-a-lisp-dialect/
>>54751058
pythons regular expressions are separate (module), to python
/me would not use regex
in reading the tome about regex, within 1st chapter, it admitted that the regex program is only a few 1000 lines long
from that, a mass of spun off laziness/complexity -- people need to think about what regex is. It's a black box that does a lot of things, yes.
Goes agains the zen of python - Regex is anti-python. IMO regex implementors are LAZY
>>54750083
>All worthwhile language features
except readability, brutal typing, actually good compilers and interop features.
QED, mozzafucker
Also, Python should have remained a learning language.
The original Lisp concept didn't have lambdas, closures, macros, garbage collection, packages/modules, arrays, strings, bignums, floating point, customizable reader, generic functions, or S-expression syntax.
When these were added to Lisp dialects is left as an exercise for the reader.
>>54751581
Python never was a learning language, though it was based on one (ABC).
>>54751058
>Python can only have one line lambda expressions
>>54751717
Use eval
>>54751717
the bigger problem than one-line lambdas is the limit on what you can put inside them
