Python is almost perfect.

At least it is closer to perfection than any other language.

If Python "forces" you to indent anywhere you wouldn't have indented anyway, you should probably just stop programming. By assuming the competency of programmer, Python effectively eliminates the need for braces and semi-colons. Too incompetent to understand? Have fun with Ruby.

Value syntactic simplicity from the interpreter's point of view over syntactic beauty and elegance from the programmer's point of view? Have fun with Lisp. Since my complex human brain is capable of quickly understanding more than two special characters in addition to a base-10 numerical system and 26-letter alphabet, Python does not confuse me. If you're more comfortable with globs of unstructured text surrounded by thousands of parentheses, then enjoy your toy language. That's why Python has been around a fraction of the time Lisp has, yet it has exponentially more practical application than Lisp does.

Python is for grown up programmers. Perl is for old men who didn't have Python in their time. Everything else is for children who want to put on big kids clothes and play grown up.

>>40
not using SIMD for vector operations
ISHYGDDT

>>39
It must suck to be that autistic. If you mentally set yourself to ignore the parentheses, then you must remember the arity of every function you use (which will of course fail for variadic functions). Lisp simply does not provide the visual cues that almost every other language provides. I'll agree with you everyday that Lisp has beautiful semantics, but it's the worst piece of shit when it comes to syntax.

>>42
Lisp is too deep for you. You are like a kid, who havent learned to read, he looks in the book and sees only dirty pages.

welcome to Python, where zip doesn't take a lambda.

>>42

surely a function should either have obvious parameters and/or should take named parameters. this is doable in lisp, javascript, python, etc

showing function arity/parameter info seems more like an ide feature than a language one.

>>40
1) that's hideous
2) I don't understand the python shit. I understand lambda calculus. It's not some Python-specific bullshit. It's pure and beautiful.
3) in Lisp it would be prettier. For instance, (apply + (map * self other)). Since everything is a function, you don't need to spell out simple lambdas all the time and come up with tons of bullshit temp variable names like "x" and "y" nearly as much. (although a fold would be more efficient anyway)
4) god that's some bullshit. In Lisp you just use lists of numbers for vectors. None of this prancing around like a faggot with some bullshit "object model"

>>42
so parentheses act as a hint as to the arity, but most functions have extremely well understood arities. You know exactly how many subexpressions a let form is going to have, for instance.

>>47
"let" is alright. A "cpnd" nested four special forms in, I don't think so.

>>48
fuck I meant cond. it's really early in the morning :/

>>46
In Lisp:

(let ((M (list (list 1 2) (list 3 4))
      (v (list 5 6)))
     (multiply-matrix-by-vector M (multiply-vector-by-number v -1))

In Python:
M = Matrix([[1, 2], [3, 4]])
v = Vector([5, 6])
M * -v

Lisp is clearly the autist's choice.

But hey, look, you can code like a aspie in Python too.

M = [[1, 2], [3, 4]]
v = [5, 6]
multiply_matrix_by_vector(M, multiply_vector_by_number(v, -1))

In Lisp, you're stuck doing things a certain way so you convince yourself it's the correct way. If it were the correct way, we wouldn't have stopped doing it 50 years ago.

>>50
Nice try kid, but in about any Lisp today you can have generic functions. But of course you probably don't even know the term, because it has never been uttered by Guido. Enjoy your cult. And by that, I mean Guido's dick.

FORCE THE INDENTATION OF MY ANUS

>>50

there are levels and levels that you don't understand, son.
In Lisp you don't even write that function. It's obviously too similar to another function in your program.

lrn2abstract oh wait Python doesn't let you

>>53
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Have you even heard the word abstraction before starting the first chapter of SICP that you never finished? Just because I like Python better than Lisp doesn't mean I don't know Lisp better than you. Come talk to me when you pass CS III, kid.

Ooh I have an idea. What if we made the lisp autist and the anti-GC autist fight together?

python faggots should check out haskell's FOIC and STFU

>>50
calling list on a list of numbers instead of quoting
let binding things that are only referenced once
not using generic methods
no imperative AIDS explicit return statement in the Python code

OK.

>>57
let binding things that are only referenced once
Have you ever heard of ``readability?''

You must be a Lisper.

>>50,57-58(and others)
Stupid trolls.  Fact remains, Lisp is the ideal AST (the semantics are perfect) but it's a shitty language to directly write in because of the lack of visual fucking cues.

I just learned how to use the spoiler tag, and now I'm shitposting on pork!

>>58
ever heard of "designing your whitespace in custom ways to fit the readability of the problem at hand?"

You must be a Pythonfaggot.

>>58,61
You must both be morons.

can someone explain the explicit usage of self in Python?

Why can't it use this instead?

>>63
why can't it use closed over variables?

>>64
Because that would be unpythonic and ultimately convenient.

>>63
It can. It's merely social convention and Pythonic to use self.

>>64
because LOL CLOSURES just use classes, ``faggot''

>>67
no thanks. I'll just use a real high level language, like Lua.

>>67
What's the syntax for defining classes inline agaihbt

>>64
self comes from Smalltalk I believe, which was the first or one of the first object-oriented languages. Either way, it's not a keyword. You can call it ``dicks'' if you want to.

How Lua solves self redundancy:

-- before
function Person.setName(self, name)
  self.name = name
end

-- after
function Person:setName(name)
  self.name = name
end

I love how everyone is concerned with the totally trivial issue of the name of 'self' in >>64, but hardly a word about closures.

>>71
>set
imperative AIDS. Lua has object literals. You generally just write

Person{name = "Retarded JavaKid"}

>>71
setName
I hate you, your naming convention and everything it stands for.

>>72
Python has closures.

Happy?

>>75
pre-3.0, lol arrays of 1 thing. post-3.0, lolnonlocal
anonymous functions are limited to 1 expression

having a feature is the same as making it worth it to use the feature. Python doesn't have closures.

>>75
And Haskell has "REPL".

>>73,74
real men implement properties

>>78
real men use a design pattern rather than straightforward dynamically typed hash tables.

all my rage

>>79
some people like to implement x.x_absolute as a function returning self.x + self.parent.x_absolute, ``faggot''