It's possible to write macros in python. Every python function (with the exception of C-compiled stuff) has a bytecode property that can be parsed, manipulated, and rewritten.
It's a terrible idea to do this, but it is possible.
Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
11–20 of 200 posts
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#12I think most people switching from Lisp to Python do so for practical reasons. I suspect Peter Norvig probably wouldn't use as much Python if he didn't have to adapt to the Google culture. I think Python is a surprisingly nice language in many ways. It falls into the category of being an "acceptable Lisp". But I think most Lispers still prefer the real thing and only use Python when they need to be pragmatic.
I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.
At least P. Norvig things python is an acceptable language, if not LISP. I think the point about being optimized for small teams is a significant one. Also, because LISP appeals mostly to programmers, but it often "repeals" people with expert knowledge (e.g. scientists without a strong programming background). P. Norvig mentioned that when he converted his AI book from Lisp to python code examples, it seemed much more natural to most people,
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#13The Lisp vs. Python story really hasn't changed terribly much in the past five years or so. Both are still great languages once you learn to speak the idioms of the language. Both languages have persistent problems with people refusing to do so and then bitching that it's not $SOME_OTHER_LANGUAGE. Both languages have places where I'd suggest one of them over the other. Neither language is even close to a replacement for the other, and programming Lisp in Python is as big a mistake as programming Python in Lisp.
(Of the two though, Python seems to have more problems with people refusing to speak the native idioms and insisting on writing $LANGUAGE in Python instead. Python Is Not A Functional Language. It is a multiparadigm language where the functional is definitely the foreign and borrowed paradigm on top of an imperative/OO core. Ignoring that will bring you grief, but it won't be Python's fault.)
Later edit: In fact, refusing to speak Python's native idioms has been getting noticeably worse in the last six months. If you want a solid OO language with some decent functional borrowing, learn Python. If you want a pure functional language for whatever reason, do us all a favor and don't learn Python. Or at least don't add to the chorus of people complaining Python isn't Haskell, just go learn Haskell. Or Clojure, or whatever.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#14I tried writing an extensive Common Lisp vs. Python paper (yes, I have seen all of the existing ones), but it got too big and out of hand. One of interesting developments in Python recently are decorators, which allow some interesting metaprogramming. This can do some things that Lisp macros are used for. It's still not Lisp macros, but it;s picking off the low-hanging fruit, which helps Python coders a lot.
Any chance we might see the draft? :-)
Oh, it's so ugly, and it hasn't been checked for mistakes, etc. I'd be embarrassed to have my name associated with it.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#15Paul, this would be a great opportunity for you to plug Arc, an increasingly active Anarki (http://github.com/nex3/arc), and the growing Arc community (http://arclanguage.org/forum).
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#16Banana vs Oranges?
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#17I think most people switching from Lisp to Python do so for practical reasons. I suspect Peter Norvig probably wouldn't use as much Python if he didn't have to adapt to the Google culture. I think Python is a surprisingly nice language in many ways. It falls into the category of being an "acceptable Lisp". But I think most Lispers still prefer the real thing and only use Python when they need to be pragmatic.
I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.
> Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp
At least these languages (that I know of) have macros:
http://boo.codehaus.org
http://nemerle.org
http://www.perl6.orgRe: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#18I tried writing an extensive Common Lisp vs. Python paper (yes, I have seen all of the existing ones), but it got too big and out of hand. One of interesting developments in Python recently are decorators, which allow some interesting metaprogramming. This can do some things that Lisp macros are used for. It's still not Lisp macros, but it;s picking off the low-hanging fruit, which helps Python coders a lot.
Anything to say about MetaPython here, Dan?
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#19I think most people switching from Lisp to Python do so for practical reasons. I suspect Peter Norvig probably wouldn't use as much Python if he didn't have to adapt to the Google culture. I think Python is a surprisingly nice language in many ways. It falls into the category of being an "acceptable Lisp". But I think most Lispers still prefer the real thing and only use Python when they need to be pragmatic.
I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.
[deleted]
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know of any Lisp programmer who thinks Python in an acceptable Lisp. In fact, there are some things about Python that are completely unacceptable as far as a Lisp goes: (1) crippled lambda, (2) no easy way to pass chunks of code around, etc.... Obviously not having macros is a given in anything but Lisp. Ruby (because of blocks) is far more of an acceptable Lisp.
Yeah, the lambda issue in Python is definitely not very Lispy. But I think even though Ruby offers a bit more for Lispers, I just don't like the design of the language as much in general as Python. If I don't code Python for a year and have to delve into it again it takes only a few seconds to get back to speed again. In Ruby, on the other hand, I always forget how the blocks & variables behave and am thrown by the s…
I agree, I like Ruby better both for the syntax, the cleaner oo integration, and so on -- but a year and a half away from each, I can pick up the Python again a lot quicker. And python is friendly to scripting, low-level and embedded applications, which Ruby (Matz) is not interested in.