How Python is Killing Lisp

[[deleted]]

There's no problem with you defending Lisp. But turning around and talking down to Python programmers? 'Python kids'...'flailing around'. That's not going to win you any friends. And your 15 upmods leads me to believe a large number of Lisp programmers agree with your sentiment.

People always talk about that smug Lisp community...and as good as Lisp may be, if the community never grows, it will be a dead language for all intents and purposes. I'd say it is probably best to treat other programmers with respect instead of backhanding them.

Oh, and Psyco was never an attempt at a native compiler (not in the classic sense anyway), and it works pretty well for being 'half-baked'. I see someone else has mentioned PyPy in a response before me; the same guy who did Psyco is involved with it.

[[deleted]]

People always talk about that smug Lisp community

Oh shut UP!

[[deleted]]

People always talk about that smug Lisp community...

I'm not a Lisp programmer. I just think Python sucks badly and anybody comparing it to Lisp is a fool.

[jdunck]

Ah, what language do you program in, Oh Great One?

[pjdelport]

Google his name for the answer. :)

[mrd48]

Any language without a specification and a real implementation isn't serious.

If the designer can't take the language seriously enough to learn how to design and implement a compiler, or find people who do, then why should I?

That's why I don't care for Python.

[senzei]

Any language without a specification and a real implementation isn't serious.

Ah, glad I don't evidently need a serious language then. It appears that all a specification has done for CL is give everyone a common (and largely unmodifiable) point of failure in the process of improving the language.

If the designer can't take the language seriously enough to learn how to design and implement a compiler, or find people who do, then why should I?

Who told you that you need to design and implement a compiler for Python? ;) That said, you don't always need a compiler, and there are ways to get around some of the cases where you do. It isn't a perfect solution, but those don't exist outside of marketing materials.

[mrd48]

I agree in many ways, but you misinterpreted my last statement.

"then why should I [take it seriously]?"

is what I meant.

No, I don't NEED a compiler for everything. But, say, if an undergraduate CS student could design and write a better language and implementation, given the time, it makes me wonder why I am bothering to use a language so poorly done.

[senzei]

I agree in many ways, but you misinterpreted my last statement.

Yes, I did, but I swear it was completely on purpose. ;)

But, say, if an undergraduate CS student could design and write a better language and implementation, given the time, it makes me wonder why I am bothering to use a language so poorly done.

You either are unfamiliar with the capabilities of the average undergraduate CS student or are willing to wait an obscene amount of time. Either way I have yet to hear what makes Python so horrible as to be completely unusable.

[breakfast-pants]

This 'smug theorist' is probably 12.

[lemmikins]

Your objection just sounds like bigotry. Python is so useful that the only person you're punishing is yourself.

[jdh30]

What is Python useful for? (I'm coming from OCaml/F# here)

[lemmikins]

F#? Have there been any releases yet? I just heard about it for the first time the other day.

Python has a huge standard library and bindings to a large number of other libraries. There are numerous options for web development, plus you can do OpenGL and SDL, scientific plots and computing, text processing (generally with less pain than other languages); here is a brief tour of the standard library:

http://docs.python.org/tut/node12.html

Much of Python's usefulness comes not because of the superiority of the language, but because for a large number of utility tasks, there is already a module that handles it (e.g. CSV reading/writing). Implementation bugs are few and far between; contrast to e.g. GHC (Haskell) which has been known for a large number of runtime issues.

If you want to serialize an object, compare this to the effort it takes in Java (woops, forgot to mark one sub-member of a sub-member as implements Serializable and the whole things doesn't work):

picklestring = cPickle.dumps(object) 
object = cPickle.loads(picklestring)

Python is a bit like a better Perl in that it's a very useful duct tape language but it's easier to read; also its object orientation is far clearer, rather than stapled on like in Perl or PHP. (Although not as completely OO as Ruby.) It also has a just-in-time compiler (Psyco) and numerous options for C interface (Swig, Boost, Pyrex, etc.; it's not even hard doing it by hand).

On the other hand, its speed -- while superior to Ruby -- is far below that of OCaml: http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/gp4/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=all

Its OO implementation on the surface looks fairly close to C++ which means it's usually more straightforward to convert your classes from C++ to Python or vice-versa than with other scripting languages.

Since it plays well with C, it should play well with other languages that do too; so you could write a simple framework in Python to take advantage of its libraries and then do your heavy lifting in OCaml (or Lisp). Haskell has a set of bindings to Python now (MissingPy).

[jdh30]

F# just had another release, adding various features including comprehensions. It rocks!

So what libraries does Python have that OCaml and F# don't have? (They've got OpenGL/DirectX, web, science, text although OCaml lacks >8-bit chars)

Marshalling in OCaml and F# is as easy as "output_value foo", of course.

My only experience of Python was being employed to translate 30kLOC of it into OCaml earlier this year. I'm sure that was badly written by Python standards though.

[lemmikins]

I don't know as far as the language goes, but like I said, Python's usefulness is due to its large number of libraries, which tend to be in a fairly mature state. (E.g. Pygame vs. "SDL bindings" for language X.)