Why should I use Lisp or Haskell when Python already has all the good features from them?
>>54788521
>why should I learn meme languages
You shouldn't
>>54788521
It has none of their features actually, but you should learn rust and not haskell or lisp.
>>54788521
It's more about the features these languages don't have, in comparison to Python
>>54788521
God tier academia/books. If you want to just be a code monkey though, by all means learn as few languages as possible.
>>54788521
Because Python is among the worst languages ever created, and this fact is amplified by its users forgetting that it is a scripting language, not a system or application language.
>>54788943
why is it the worst?
>>54788521
You can't measure the quality of languages in absolute terms. It's not about the number of feature, it's about design decision..
Think about this way:
Python is a fork, Haskell is a spoon, Lisp Is a knife.
Now your question is like "why should i use a fork, when I can just use the spoon?"
And it's true, you can eat spaghetti with a spoon and you can eat a soup with a knife (drop per drop). But if it's a good idea to do so, is another story..
>Why should I use Lisp or Haskell
You can become the best programmer on earth without ever touching Lisp or Haskell. But if you feel like to dive into funtional programming to expand your mind and learn a new programming style, haskell is one of the popular possibilites out there..
>>54789746
Because it is easy to program and it's mainstream. /g/ hates anything "easy", mainstream or actually used in the industry.
>>54789746
Broken lambda, whitespace oriented, object oriented (but dynamically typed), slow, broken object model, untyped tuples, no TCO, no interfaces, several types of incompatible lists, breaking changes between versions, no switch statement.
Python does have a range of uses that it can be very good for, I acknowledge that. But I think you're foolish if you plan to build any major sort of application with it.
>>54790012
There are languages that are easy to program in like Clojure that are better. You're ignoring my main argument: Python is a scripting language. I don't need a scripting language, my work requires a system or application language. Python is useless to me.
>>54790095
Most of the things you described are jsut design decision, for example:
>whitespace oriented
design decision to make it harder to write unreadable stuff
>object oriented (but dynamically typed)
makes some things very easy and fast
>slow
as every interpreted langauge
I don't bother to discuss every detail here, but python is one of the most succesfull languages ever and perfect for what it was designed for. I think every sane person knows that you don't try to build a comlete OS with Python.
>I don't need a scripting language
How can a scripting language not be usefull?
If you do stuff like copy 100 files and rename them automatically things are so easy with "scripting languages".
>>54788521
if that's the way you're approaching the question then you should really just stick with python. If you really believe it is the end-all be-all language then it is clearly an excellent match for both your programming style and the type of problems you are solving. Even if the other languages did have something interesting that python didn't, what would be the point - you can't use it in python anyway, and if it were really good then python would have it.
Only when you become frustrated with the limitations of python will your mind be open to what the other languages bring to the table. Otherwise you'll completely miss the point of monads and kliesli arrows, of non-strict evaluation, of macros, of code-data isomorphism, and metaobject protocols, and all the god-tier books and papers in the world will be unlikely to change your mind.
>>54790095
Clojure isn't a scripting language. With that being said, clojure sucks for what it was intended for , while python has succeeded.
>>54788521
just b urself
>>54790095
then if its so bad why does google use it?
>>54791159
How dumb do you have to be that you can't learn the syntax for a new language easily? If your entire argument is that languages x and y share a feature set for some task you wanna do then this actually becomes mechanical translation so long as you restrict yourself to that feature set.
