It seems that a lot of old school Lispers switching to Python (for example: Peter Norvig). What do you think on Lisp vs Python today?
Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
1–10 of 200 posts
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#2An approximation of some of Norvig's recent thoughts (Feb 2010):
"(1) It just turned out that when Google was started, the core programmers were C++ programmers and they were very effective. Part of it is a little bit of culture. (2) Early Lisp programmers (Erann Gat) at Google actually noticed that other programmers were equally or more productive. It has more to do with the programmer; we're getting to the point where language choice is less important (as opposed to 20 years ago). (3) Lisp is optimized for a single programmer or a small group of programmers doing exploratory work... If I want to make a change in a weekend I'd rather do it in Lisp than anything else, but by the time you get up to hundreds of programers making changes are not a language problem but a social one. (4) Libraries."
Paraphrased from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE7k0_9k0VA#t=03m20s.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#3I 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.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#4An approximation of some of Norvig's recent thoughts (Feb 2010): "(1) It just turned out that when Google was started, the core programmers were C++ programmers and they were very effective. Part of it is a little bit of culture. (2) Early Lisp programmers (Erann Gat) at Google actually noticed that other programmers were equally or more productive. It has more to do with the programmer; we're getting to the point wh…
That reminds me of a cool story, in Norvig's talk about Python...
When he finished Peter [Norvig] took questions and to my surprise called first on the rumpled old guy who had wandered in just before the talk began and eased himself into a chair just across the aisle from me and a few rows up.
This guy had wild white hair and a scraggly white beard and looked hopelessly lost as if he had gotten separated from the tour group and wandered in mostly to rest his feet and just a little to see what we were all up to. My first thought was that he would be terribly disappointed by our bizarre topic and my second thought was that he would be about the right age, Stanford is just down the road, I think he is still at Stanford -- could it be?
"Yes, John?" Peter said.
I won't pretend to remember Lisp inventor John McCarthy's exact words which is odd because there were only about ten but he simply asked if Python could gracefully manipulate Python code as data.
"No, John, it can't," said Peter and nothing more, graciously assenting to the professor's critique, and McCarthy said no more though Peter waited a moment to see if he would and in the silence a thousand words were said.
http://smuglispweeny.blogspot.com/2008/02/ooh-ooh-my-turn-wh...
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#5I 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.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#6I 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.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#7I'm a Clojure guy that just wrote my first Pylons app. Here's my impression:
1. Python doesn't suck. I was able to mix FP & OOP approaches to get to my goal fairly quickly.
2. iPython was fun to use, helped out a lot, but it's not SLIME.
3. Guido has an excellent goal with making code readable, and significant white space is not a bad choice. However, I find being able to analyze active data structures in a Clojure namespace to be a superior way to learn about a system.
4. Python's libraries are pretty good, and it's already been written. As a first impression, Python libs are much better to use than Clojure wrapped java libs. I'm going to look into porting SQLAlachemy to Clojure, it rocks.
5. Paster has a ton of functionality. I'd like to see a similar Clojure tool, maybe Lien can evolve into that.
6. I would like to see more FP constructs natively available in Python.
7. __method__ is an interesting convention. You can have an object implement the right method, and your object works with Python syntax. However, I find it to be a poor man's version of Clojure's protocols (Full Disclojure, I have a conflict of interests here).
8. Decorators are an interesting way to do functional composition, but I prefer comp and monads. Way more versatile.
9. INSERT MACRO RANT HERE
That's all I've got for now. I'm sure I forgot something.
SFD
edit: grammar & spelling
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#8I 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? :-)
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#9I 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.
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 strange predicate syntax, making this far more unpleasant.
Re: Ask PG: Lisp vs Python (2010)
#10I 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.
I agree. But if you find yourself with an employer who requires that everything be written one of a few languages, and Lisp isn't on the menu, I'd take Python over C++ in a heartbeat.