
Python vs. Lisp - jacquesm
http://www.strout.net/python/pythonvslisp.html
======
mahmud
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.

------
wooby
Strikes me as dated and pointless; reads like a high school "compare and
contrast" essay and the guy is hell bent on flaming Lisp. Apples and Oranges
dude.

------
projectileboy
English makes a lot of sense to me, but Chinese just doesn't. Can't you see
how nicely English hangs together, and how it expresses things so clearly? The
pictographic alphabet and grammar and syntax of the Chinese language... it's
just not as elegant or powerful.

------
jacquesm
This is quite dated, but I found it interesting. I also wonder how such a
comparison done today would fare for both languages.

