LISP x Python - Round 93

Let me hear you...


Which one

Is

The best

Language?

Python is a joke. Semantically, you're put in a straightjacket¹ (thanks, Guido!), and tuning for performance is impossible².

Either use a powerful high-level language (Common Lisp) or go to back to C. You might say, "but I'll mess things up in C." But this is exactly the point! If we remove all of the lame languages that let total failures write code, they will have nowhere to go, and the Order will be restored once again.

In general, remember that when you use a language above native machine instructions³, you're accepting the abstractions and philosophies of the people who created that language. If you have to use something that's broken or backwards just to stay afloat (or worse, you don't realize that it's broken or backwards), something is wrong with you.

¹ Before you tell me that "it supports functional, LOL!": no, it doesn't. Obviously, very few people can define "functional" precisely, but if you take 10 minutes to do a little Googling, you'll find that the functional features of Python were crippled from the start, and Guido has expressed specific dislike of even those. It seems like Guido would prefer to make his language "idiot friendly", rather than powerful, in order to get a large number of people using it. It's not just functional programming either. Everything in Python reeks of the "one correct way to do it", to the point where doing anything complicated feels tedious.

² Obviously, a better data structure or algorithm will always help, and often people who complain about performance don't know what they're doing. However, doing anything beyond that in Python is basically impossible, save for some of the projects like Psyco (which sort of work sometimes, but not really), or writing your core functions in C and then interacting with them in Python. The last time I tried the latter, it was downright fugly. Contrast this with Common Lisp (SBCL), and a person has a valid reason to find the state of Python unacceptable.

³ I realize that you can "pick" different architectures, and could theoretically create your own. But since the former is limited to a handful of choices, and the latter basically never happens, I decided machine instructions were a fair choice for the "unmovable bottom" of the hierarchy.

>>10
I like you. I like your post. I read it at least once. Please don't leave me ;_;

I am Ayn Rand's vagina, and I'm here to ask you a question.

Is a programmer not entitled to the codes on his screen?

No, says the CEO; it belongs to the company.

No, says the man from academia; it belongs in a paper.

No, says Richard Stallman; it belongs to everyone!

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible.

I chose...


                  *
                  |
                  |                                       
                  |                                       |
             _____|_____                             _|___|
            |          |`                           |      |`
            |          ||  ______________________   |      ||
 _______    |          || |    HAVE YOU READ     |  |      ||
|       |`  |          || |   YOUR SICP TODAY?   |  |      ||
|       ||  |          || |______________________|  |      ||
|       ||  |          ||   _|_____________|_       |      ||
|       ||  |          ||  |                 |`     |      ||
|       ||  |          ||  |                 ||     |      ||
|       ||  |          ||  |                 ||     |      ||
|       ||  |          ||  |                 ||     |      ||

           '(L      A      M      B      D      A)

A city where the Lisper would not fear the Python Java Faggot.

Where the EXPERT MACRO SCIENTIST would not be bound by petty runtime-only execution.

Where the algorithms would not be constrained by the ass-backwards machine language.

And with the codes on your screen, Lambda can become your city as well.

>>10
What's your opinion on RUBY?

>>10
You call Python limited then suggest Lithp as a solution? Unless you're building something like the ``In Lisp'' DSL on top of your favourite flavour of Lisp, you are full of shit and I hate you with every fibre of my being.

>>10
See >>11, put a tripcode so that I'll be able to worship you as my new God.

>>13

I tried it once. I liked the features and "feel" of the language more than Python, but speed was still a huge problem (not sure what it's like now, but I somehow suspect Ruby is still slow). I remember the metaprogramming feature being really lame compared to Lisp, although I'll admit that I rarely use macros in Common Lisp, so I won't count that against it.

The community, however, is absolutely intolerable (and I say that with a full understanding of the Common Lisp community). As Rails gained popularity, it seemed (at least superficially) that most of the people involved with Ruby were doing it for the sake of Rails, and I figured (and was later vindicated by my guess being correct) that since Rails was another fluffy, vapid fad that would die out (Rails has already lost most of its sex appeal among the Macbook/Radiohead/iPod/Textmate/Starbuck's crowd), the conflation of Rails and Ruby would ultimately hurt Ruby.

Still, if I had to choose between Python and Ruby, I'd probably take Ruby. However, I still see no reason to use it over Common Lisp. In general, I've found languages like Python, Perl and Ruby to be easy to use, but I always end up replacing or rewriting everything I do in those languages anyway. Thus, I've been getting by using less "scripty" languages, and I haven't regretted it once, even if it means the initial development process is a little bit slower.

What's your opinion on Ruby?

>>15

Wait until you find out that >>10 and >>11 are both me!

>>17
>>15 is also me.

>>10-19
SPAWHBTC