On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:

> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp

The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
--- Paul Graham

Some entity, AKA "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>
>> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
>> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp
>
> The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
> --- Paul Graham

Just to set the record straight;
This is not My line.
I quoted it but don't know who the originator of that remmark is.

Cor

--

Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp

On 5/27/2024 7:18 AM, Cor wrote:
> Some entity, AKA "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>,
> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>
>> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>>
>>> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
>>> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp
>>
>> The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
>> --- Paul Graham
>
> Just to set the record straight;
> This is not My line.
> I quoted it but don't know who the originator of that remark is.
>
> Cor
>

a few years ago... when i started learning Python...

it was so exciting...

Every day i thought...

--- THis is Lisp in a thin-disguise ... SO Everyone gets it now.
Everyone is a Lisper now.

Cor <cornews@clsnet.nl> writes:

Some entity, AKA "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>,
wrote this mindboggling stuff:
(selectively-snipped-or-not-p)

> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>
>> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
>> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp
>
> The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
> --- Paul Graham

Just to set the record straight;
This is not My line.
I quoted it but don't know who the originator of that remmark is.

What you quoted is so close to "Greenspun's tenth rule" (see
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule>), that I think
Phil Greenspun probably deserves the credit.

- Alan

On 5/27/2024 1:59 PM, 2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com wrote:
> On 2024-05-27 at 12:37:01 -0700,
> HenHanna via Python-list <python-list@python.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5/27/2024 7:18 AM, Cor wrote:
>>> Some entity, AKA "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>,
>>> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
>>> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>>>
>>>> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
>>>>> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of common-lisp
>>>>
>>>> The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
>>>> --- Paul Graham
>>>
>>> Just to set the record straight;
>>> This is not My line.
>>> I quoted it but don't know who the originator of that remark is.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule

interesting!!!

Are the Rules 1--9 by Greenspun good too?

does Greenspun pun ?

On 2024-05-29, HenHanna <HenHanna@devnull.tb> wrote:
> On 5/27/2024 1:59 PM, 2QdxY4RzWzUUiLuE@potatochowder.com wrote:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenspun%27s_tenth_rule
>
>
> interesting!!!
>
> Are the Rules 1--9 by Greenspun good too?

I don't think they exist; it's a joke.

However, Greenspun's resume of accomplishments is a marvel and
an inspiration, including many in Lisp.

A few highlights:

https://philip.greenspun.com/personal/resume

"Helped architect, simulate and design prototype of HP's Precision
Architecture RISC computer. The prototype took two man-years to complete
and ran at VAX 11/780 speed in June 1983. This architecture became the
basis of HP's computer product line for 15 years and then became the
basis for the 64-bit generation of Intel processors."

https://philip.greenspun.com/personal/resume-list

"Automatic Layout tools for VLSI, with an emphasis on bus cells and
automatic implementation of finite state machines (1984 for Symbolics)"

"Design tools on Symbolics Lisp Machine for RISC CPU implemented in TTL
(1982-3 for Hewlett Packard)" (in reference to the PA-RISC work).

"ConSolve system for automating earthmoving, entirely implemented in
Lisp (1986-1989 for ConSolve), including:

* Delaunay Triangulation-based terrain model, with C0 and C1 surface
models.
* complete environment for earthworks and road design, including
software to specify design surfaces, calculate costs of
realizing design surfaces and automatic design tools
* tree-structured database of zoning laws and automatic testing of
design compliance
* hydrology modelling to calculate drainage basins, streams and ridges
* simulation of earthmoving vehicles
* automated surveying using vehicles and location systems
* radio interface to Caterpillar vehicle, including CRCC error detection
* automatically generated user interface"

--
TXR Programming Language: http://nongnu.org/txr
Cygnal: Cygwin Native Application Library: http://kylheku.com/cygnal
Mastodon: @Kazinator@mstdn.ca

On Mon, 27 May 2024 12:37:01 -0700, HenHanna wrote:

> On 5/27/2024 7:18 AM, Cor wrote:
>> Some entity, AKA "B. Pym" <No_spamming@noWhere_7073.org>,
>> wrote this mindboggling stuff:
>> (selectively-snipped-or-not-p)
>>
>>> On 12/16/2023, cor@clsnet.nl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Any marginally usable programming language approaches an ill
>>>> defined barely usable re-implementation of half of
>>>> common-lisp
>>>
>>> The good news is, it's not Lisp that sucks, but Common Lisp.
>>> --- Paul Graham
>>
>> Just to set the record straight;
>> This is not My line.
>> I quoted it but don't know who the originator of that remark is.
>>
>> Cor
>>
>>
>
> a few years ago... when i started learning Python...
>
> it was so exciting...
>
> Every day i thought...
>
> --- THis is Lisp in a thin-disguise ... SO Everyone gets it now.
> Everyone is a Lisper now.

Except it's not Lisp in a thin disguise, but rather an anti-Lisp,
which copies just enough from Lisp to be "marginally usable" as
your quote puts it, and then addresses certain specific use cases
by adding syntactic or semantic special cases, just to stop people
in the early days from listening to Lispers' calls for macros to
be added so that Python's weaknesses could be addressed in general
instead of only in certain special cases.

In some ways, Python is aggressively anti-Lispy, in a way that
cannot be reconciled. Just one example: if you've built up a
list comprehension and suddenly you need to reference the
result of the same computation twice, now you need to turn
the whole thing into a for loop because you can't introduce
variables in the middle of an expression. This is supposedly
"good" because there's some species of idiot who can't
understand expressions, and all Python code must be understandable
to these specific idiots. But it's okay for Python to have
weird special-case behavior that no-one would ever guess is
happening until they're debugging some weird problem in a big
open-source library and see it first hand.

On Mon, 24 Jun 2024 06:07:04 -0000 (UTC), Sebastian Wells wrote:

> In some ways, Python is aggressively anti-Lispy, in a way that cannot be
> reconciled. Just one example: if you've built up a list comprehension
> and suddenly you need to reference the result of the same computation
> twice, now you need to turn the whole thing into a for loop because you
> can't introduce variables in the middle of an expression.

Sure you can.