Re: what is the problem?

[Paul Graham <address@hidden>]

I have often wondered where Lisp fit into Python's
development.  When I first read about it, it seemed to be
Lisp with syntax.  And yet if Python had been designed by
Lisp hackers, why didn't it have lexical scope?
 
Since I have you here to ask these things, maybe you
can help me understand the essence of Python.  Imagine
this recipe for a language: XLisp + syntax + lots o
libraries.  How would the first version of Python
differ from this hypothetical language?  The only
difference I can see (from a very quick look) is
that you need explicit returns.
 
I ask because Kevin suggested that Python is a cleaned
up Perl, whereas it seems to me that despite their
similar libraries, the core of Python is closer to
Lisp than Perl.
 
Re the actual description, the problem you're fixing with
a language is not always the one you think you're fixing.
For example, Linux was fixing the problem "the Berkeley
Unix guys are in a copyright dispute with AT&T."

--pg

--- Jeremy Hylton <jeremy@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> "PG" == Paul Graham <paulgraham@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>   PG>  Python: Lisp syntax is scary and CL and Scheme have no
>   PG>  libraries.
> 
> This one is amusing, because Python was designed by someone who had
> (almost?) no familiarity with Lisp, whether CL or Scheme.  Don't let
> lambda, map, filter, and reduce fool you.  Some users lobbied for
> them
> early in the language's history.
> 
> Jeremy
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com