A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda

Discussion in 'Java' started by Xah Lee, May 6, 2006.

  1. Xah Lee

    Xah Lee Guest

    Python, Lambda, and Guido van Rossum

    Xah Lee, 2006-05-05

    In this post, i'd like to deconstruct one of Guido's recent blog about
    lambda in Python.

    In Guido's blog written in 2006-02-10 at
    http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358

    is first of all, the title “Language Design Is Not Just Solving
    Puzzlesâ€. In the outset, and in between the lines, we are told that
    “I'm the supreme intellect, and I created Pythonâ€.

    This seems impressive, except that the tech geekers due to their
    ignorance of sociology as well as lack of analytic abilities of the
    mathematician, do not know that creating a language is a act that
    requires little qualifications. However, creating a language that is
    used by a lot people takes considerable skill, and a big part of that
    skill is salesmanship. Guido seems to have done it well and seems to
    continue selling it well, where, he can put up a title of belittlement
    and get away with it too.

    Gaudy title aside, let's look at the content of his say. If you peruse
    the 700 words, you'll find that it amounts to that Guido does not like
    the suggested lambda fix due to its multi-line nature, and says that he
    don't think there could possibly be any proposal he'll like. The
    reason? Not much! Zen is bantered about, mathematician's impractical
    ways is waved, undefinable qualities are given, human's right brain is
    mentioned for support (neuroscience!), Rube Goldberg contrivance
    phraseology is thrown, and coolness of Google Inc is reminded for the
    tech geekers (in juxtaposition of a big notice that Guido works
    there.).

    If you are serious, doesn't this writing sounds bigger than its
    content? Look at the gorgeous ending: “This is also the reason why
    Python will never have continuations, and even why I'm uninterested in
    optimizing tail recursion. But that's for another installment.â€. This
    benevolent geeker is gonna give us another INSTALLMENT!

    There is a computer language leader by the name of Larry Wall, who said
    that “The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness,
    Impatience and Hubris†among quite a lot of other ingenious
    outpourings. It seems to me, the more i learn about Python and its
    leader, the more similarities i see.

    So Guido, i understand that selling oneself is a inherent and necessary
    part of being a human animal. But i think the lesser beings should be
    educated enough to know that fact. So that when minions follow a
    leader, they have a clear understanding of why and what.

    ----

    Regarding the lambda in Python situation... conceivably you are right
    that Python lambda is perhaps at best left as it is crippled, or even
    eliminated. However, this is what i want: I want Python literatures,
    and also in Wikipedia, to cease and desist stating that Python supports
    functional programing. (this is not necessarily a bad publicity) And, I
    want the Perl literatures to cease and desist saying they support OOP.
    But that's for another installment.

    ----
    This post is archived at:
    http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/python_lambda_guido.html

        Xah
       
    ∑ http://xahlee.org/
     
    Xah Lee, May 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Xah Lee

    Ken Tilton Guest

    Xah Lee wrote:
    > Python, Lambda, and Guido van Rossum
    >
    > Xah Lee, 2006-05-05
    >
    > In this post, i'd like to deconstruct one of Guido's recent blog about
    > lambda in Python.
    >
    > In Guido's blog written in 2006-02-10 at
    > http://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358
    >
    > is first of all, the title “Language Design Is Not Just Solving
    > Puzzlesâ€. In the outset, and in between the lines, we are told that
    > “I'm the supreme intellect, and I created Pythonâ€.
    >
    > This seems impressive, except that the tech geekers due to their
    > ignorance of sociology as well as lack of analytic abilities of the
    > mathematician, do not know that creating a language is a act that
    > requires little qualifications. However, creating a language that is
    > used by a lot people takes considerable skill, and a big part of that
    > skill is salesmanship. Guido seems to have done it well and seems to
    > continue selling it well, where, he can put up a title of belittlement
    > and get away with it too.
    >
    > Gaudy title aside, let's look at the content of his say. If you peruse
    > the 700 words, you'll find that it amounts to that Guido does not like
    > the suggested lambda fix due to its multi-line nature, and says that he
    > don't think there could possibly be any proposal he'll like. The
    > reason? Not much! Zen is bantered about, mathematician's impractical
    > ways is waved, undefinable qualities are given, human's right brain is
    > mentioned for support (neuroscience!), Rube Goldberg contrivance
    > phraseology is thrown,


    I think this is what you missed in your deconstruction. The upshot of
    what he wrote is that it would be really hard to make semantically
    meaningful indentation work with lambda. Guido did not mean it, but the
    Rube Goldberg slam is actually against indentation as syntax. "Yes,
    print statements in a while loop would be helpful, but..." it would be
    so hard, let's go shopping. ie, GvR and Python have hit a ceiling.

    That's OK, it was never meant to be anything more than a scripting
    language anyway.

    But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
    scale. Nor will Python.

    > and coolness of Google Inc is reminded for the
    > tech geekers (in juxtaposition of a big notice that Guido works
    > there.).
    >
    > If you are serious, doesn't this writing sounds bigger than its
    > content? Look at the gorgeous ending: “This is also the reason why
    > Python will never have continuations, and even why I'm uninterested in
    > optimizing tail recursion. But that's for another installment.â€. This
    > benevolent geeker is gonna give us another INSTALLMENT!
    >
    > There is a computer language leader by the name of Larry Wall, who said
    > that “The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness,
    > Impatience and Hubris†among quite a lot of other ingenious
    > outpourings. It seems to me, the more i learn about Python and its
    > leader, the more similarities i see.
    >
    > So Guido, i understand that selling oneself is a inherent and necessary
    > part of being a human animal. But i think the lesser beings should be
    > educated enough to know that fact. So that when minions follow a
    > leader, they have a clear understanding of why and what.


    Oh, my, you are preaching to the herd (?!) of lemmings?! Please tell me
    you are aware that lemmings do not have ears. You should just do Lisp
    all day and add to the open source libraries to speed Lisp's ascendance.
    The lemmings will be liberated the day Wired puts John McCarthy on the
    cover, and not a day sooner anyway.

    kenny (wondering what to call a flock (?!) of lemmings)

    --
    Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/

    "Have you ever been in a relationship?"
    Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
    minister husband, when asked if the couple had
    marital problems.
     
    Ken Tilton, May 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ken Tilton <> wrote:
    ...
    > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
    > scale. Nor will Python.


    Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously*
    large scale systems, like my employer (and supplier of your free mail
    account), would never, EVER use Python, nor employ in prominent
    positions such people as the language's inventor and BDFL, the author of
    the most used checking tool for it, and the author of the best-selling
    reference book about that language; and, for that matter, a Director of
    Search Quality who, while personally a world-renowned expert of AI and
    LISP, is on record as supporting Python very strongly, and publically
    stating its importance to said employer.

    Obviously will not scale. Never.

    Well... hardly ever!


    Alex
     
    Alex Martelli, May 6, 2006
    #3
  4. Xah Lee

    I V Guest

    On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:26:26 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
    > Regarding the lambda in Python situation... conceivably you are right
    > that Python lambda is perhaps at best left as it is crippled, or even
    > eliminated. However, this is what i want: I want Python literatures,
    > and also in Wikipedia, to cease and desist stating that Python supports
    > functional programing. (this is not necessarily a bad publicity) And, I


    What does lambda have to do with supporting or not supporting functional
    programming?
     
    I V, May 6, 2006
    #4
  5. Xah Lee

    Ken Tilton Guest

    Alex Martelli wrote:
    > Ken Tilton <> wrote:
    > ...
    >
    >>But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
    >>scale. Nor will Python.

    >
    >
    > Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously*
    > large scale systems, like my employer (and supplier of your free mail
    > account), would never, EVER use Python, nor employ in prominent
    > positions such people as the language's inventor and BDFL, the author of
    > the most used checking tool for it, and the author of the best-selling
    > reference book about that language; and, for that matter, a Director of
    > Search Quality who, while personally a world-renowned expert of AI and
    > LISP, is on record as supporting Python very strongly, and publically
    > stating its importance to said employer.
    >
    > Obviously will not scale. Never.
    >
    > Well... hardly ever!


    You are talking about being incredibly popular. I was talking about
    language expressivity. COBOL in its day was incredibly popular and
    certainly the language of choice (hell, the only language) for the
    biggest corporations you can imagine. But it did not scale as a
    language. I hope there are no doubts on that score (and I actually am a
    huge fan of COBOL).

    The problem for Python is its success. meant to be a KISS scripting
    language, it has caught on so well that people are asking it to be a
    full-blown, OO, GC, reflexive, yada, yada, yada language. Tough to do
    when all you wanted to be when you grew up was a scripting language.

    kenny (who is old enough to have seen many a language come and go)

    --
    Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/

    "Have you ever been in a relationship?"
    Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
    minister husband, when asked if the couple had
    marital problems.
     
    Ken Tilton, May 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Xah Lee

    Rhino Guest

    "I V" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:26:26 -0700, Xah Lee wrote:
    >> Regarding the lambda in Python situation... conceivably you are right
    >> that Python lambda is perhaps at best left as it is crippled, or even
    >> eliminated. However, this is what i want: I want Python literatures,
    >> and also in Wikipedia, to cease and desist stating that Python supports
    >> functional programing. (this is not necessarily a bad publicity) And, I

    >
    > What does lambda have to do with supporting or not supporting functional
    > programming?
    >


    What does any of this have to do with Java?

    --
    Rhino
     
    Rhino, May 6, 2006
    #6
  7. On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:16:50 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
    > The upshot of
    > what he wrote is that it would be really hard to make semantically
    > meaningful indentation work with lambda.


    Pretty much correct. The complete thought was that it would be painful
    all out of proportion to the benefit.

    See, you don't need multi-line lambda, because you can do this:


    def make_adder(x):
    def adder_func(y):
    sum = x + y
    return sum
    return adder_func

    add5 = make_adder(5)
    add7 = make_adder(7)

    print add5(1) # prints 6
    print add5(10) # prints 15
    print add7(1) # prints 8


    Note that make_adder() doesn't use lambda, and yet it makes a custom
    function with more than one line. Indented, even.

    You could also do this:


    lst = [] # create empty list
    def f(x):
    return x + 5
    lst.append(f)
    del(f) # now that the function ref is in the list, clean up temp name

    print lst[0](1) # prints 6


    Is this as convenient as the lambda case?

    lst.append(lambda x: x + 7)
    print lst[1](1) # prints 8


    No; lambda is a bit more convenient. But this doesn't seem like a very
    big issue worth a flame war. If GvR says multi-line lambda would make
    the lexer more complicated and he doesn't think it's worth all the effort,
    I don't see any need to argue about it.



    > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
    > scale. Nor will Python.


    This is a curious statement, given that Python is famous for scaling well.

    I won't say more, since Alex Martelli already pointed out that Google is
    doing big things with Python and it seems to scale well for them.
    --
    Steve R. Hastings "Vita est"
    http://www.blarg.net/~steveha
     
    Steve R. Hastings, May 6, 2006
    #7
  8. Ken Tilton <> writes:

    > kenny (wondering what to call a flock (?!) of lemmings)


    Couldn't find it here:-

    http://ojohaven.com/collectives/

    So I would propose a "leap" of lemmings :)


    WAY OT! Sorry.

    atb









    Glyn
     
    Glyn Millington, May 6, 2006
    #8
  9. Xah Lee

    Ken Tilton Guest

    Steve R. Hastings wrote:
    > On Fri, 05 May 2006 21:16:50 -0400, Ken Tilton wrote:
    >
    >>The upshot of
    >>what he wrote is that it would be really hard to make semantically
    >>meaningful indentation work with lambda.

    >
    >
    > Pretty much correct. The complete thought was that it would be painful
    > all out of proportion to the benefit.
    >
    > See, you don't need multi-line lambda, because you can do this:
    >
    >
    > def make_adder(x):
    > def adder_func(y):
    > sum = x + y
    > return sum
    > return adder_func
    >
    > add5 = make_adder(5)
    > add7 = make_adder(7)
    >
    > print add5(1) # prints 6
    > print add5(10) # prints 15
    > print add7(1) # prints 8
    >
    >
    > Note that make_adder() doesn't use lambda, and yet it makes a custom
    > function with more than one line. Indented, even.
    >
    > You could also do this:
    >
    >
    > lst = [] # create empty list
    > def f(x):
    > return x + 5
    > lst.append(f)
    > del(f) # now that the function ref is in the list, clean up temp name
    >
    > print lst[0](1) # prints 6
    >
    >
    > Is this as convenient as the lambda case?
    >
    > lst.append(lambda x: x + 7)
    > print lst[1](1) # prints 8
    >
    >
    > No; lambda is a bit more convenient. But this doesn't seem like a very
    > big issue worth a flame war.


    <g> Hopefully it can be a big issue and still not justify a flame war.

    Mileages will always vary, but one reason for lambda is precisely not to
    have to stop, go make a new function for this one very specific use,
    come back and use it as the one lambda statement, or in C have an
    address to pass. but, hey, what are editors for? :)

    the bigger issue is the ability of a lambda to close over arbitrary
    lexically visible variables. this is something the separate function
    cannot see, so one has to have a function parameter for everything.

    but is such lexical scoping even on the table when Ptyhon's lambda comes
    up for periodic review?

    > If GvR says multi-line lambda would make
    > the lexer more complicated and he doesn't think it's worth all the effort,
    > I don't see any need to argue about it.


    Oh, no, this is just front porch rocking chair BS. But as an enthuiastic
    developer I am sensitive to how design choices express themselves in
    ways unanticipated. Did the neat idea of indentation-sensitivity doom
    pythonistas to a life without the sour grapes of lambda?

    If so, Xah's critique missed that issue and was unfair to GvR in
    ascribing his resistance to multi-statement lamda to mere BDFLism.

    kenny

    --
    Cells: http://common-lisp.net/project/cells/

    "Have you ever been in a relationship?"
    Attorney for Mary Winkler, confessed killer of her
    minister husband, when asked if the couple had
    marital problems.
     
    Ken Tilton, May 6, 2006
    #9
  10. Xah Lee

    John Bokma Guest

    [Reported] (was Re: A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda)

    Reported for excessive crossposting.

    --
    John Bokma Freelance software developer
    &
    Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
     
    John Bokma, May 6, 2006
    #10
  11. Xah Lee

    John Bokma Guest

    "Rhino" <> wrote:

    > What does any of this have to do with Java?


    Xah Lee is well known for abusing Usenet for quite some time, report
    his posts as excessive crossposts to:

    abuse at bcglobal dot net
    abuse at dreamhost dot com

    IIRC this is his third ISP account in 2 weeks, so it *does* work.

    Moreover, his current hosting provider, dreamhost, might drop him soon.

    --
    John Bokma Freelance software developer
    &
    Experienced Perl programmer: http://castleamber.com/
     
    John Bokma, May 6, 2006
    #11
  12. Ken Tilton <> wrote:
    ...
    > > Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously*
    > > large scale systems, like my employer (and supplier of your free mail

    ...
    > > Obviously will not scale. Never.
    > >
    > > Well... hardly ever!

    >
    > You are talking about being incredibly popular. I was talking about


    Who, me? I'm talking about the deliberate, eyes-wide-open choice by
    *ONE* firm -- one which happens to more or less *redefine* what "large
    scale" computation *means*, along many axes. That's got nothing to do
    with Python being "incredibly popular": it has everything to do with
    scalability -- the choice was made in the late '90s (and, incidentally,
    by people quite familiar with lisp... no less than the reddit.com guys,
    you know, the ones who recently chose to rewrite their side from Lisp to
    Python...?), based on scalability issues, definitely not "popularity"
    (Python in the late '90s was a very obscure, little-known language).

    > kenny (who is old enough to have seen many a language come and go)


    See your "many a language" and raise you one penny -- besides sundry
    Basic dialects, machine languages, and microcode, I started out with
    Fortran IV and APL, and I have professionally programmed in Pascal (many
    dialects), Rexx, Forth, PL/I, Cobol, Lisp before there was a "Common"
    one, Prolog, Scheme, Icon, Tcl, Awk, EDL, and several proprietary 3rd
    and 4th generation languages -- as well of course as C and its
    descendants such as C++ and Java, and Perl. Many other languages I've
    studied and played with, I've never programmed _professionally_ (i.e.,
    been paid for programs in those languages), but I've written enough
    "toy" programs to get some feeling for (Ruby, SML, O'CAML, Haskell,
    Snobol, FP/1, Applescript, C#, Javascript, Erlang, Mozart, ...).

    Out of all languages I know, I've deliberately chosen to specialize in
    Python, *because it scales better* (yes, functional programming is
    _conceptually_ perfect, but one can never find sufficiently large teams
    of people with the right highly-abstract mathematical mindset and at the
    same time with sufficiently down-to-earth pragmaticity -- so, for _real
    world_ uses, Python scales better). When I was unable to convince top
    management, at the firm at which I was the top programmer, that the firm
    should move to Python (beyond the pilot projects which I led and gave
    such stellar results), I quit, and for years I made a great living as a
    freelance consultant (mostly in Python -- once in a while, a touch of
    Pyrex, C or C++ as a vigorish;-).

    That's how come I ended up working at the firm supplying your free mail
    (as Uber Tech Lead) -- they reached across an ocean to lure me to move
    from my native Italy to California, and my proven excellence in Python
    was their prime motive. The terms of their offer were just too
    incredible to pass by... so, I rapidly got my O1 visa ("alien of
    exceptional skills"), and here I am, happily ubertechleading... and
    enjoying Python and its incredibly good scalability every single day!


    Alex
     
    Alex Martelli, May 6, 2006
    #12
  13. Steve R. Hastings <> wrote:
    ...
    > > But the key in the whole thread is simply that indentation will not
    > > scale. Nor will Python.

    >
    > This is a curious statement, given that Python is famous for scaling well.


    I think "ridiculous" is a better characterization than "curious", even
    if you're seriously into understatement.


    > I won't say more, since Alex Martelli already pointed out that Google is
    > doing big things with Python and it seems to scale well for them.


    And of course we're not the only ones. In fact, I believe that we're
    not even among the firms which have reported their experiences in the
    official "Python Success Stories" -- IBM, Industrial Light and Magic,
    NASA, etc, etc, are there, but we arent. I guess we just prefer to play
    our cards closer to our chest -- after all, if our competitors choose to
    use inferior languages, it's hardly to our advantage to change that;-).


    Alex
     
    Alex Martelli, May 6, 2006
    #13
  14. Xah Lee

    Kay Schluehr Guest

    Ken Tilton wrote:

    > Oh, my, you are preaching to the herd (?!) of lemmings?! Please tell me
    > you are aware that lemmings do not have ears. You should just do Lisp
    > all day and add to the open source libraries to speed Lisp's ascendance.
    > The lemmings will be liberated the day Wired puts John McCarthy on the
    > cover, and not a day sooner anyway.


    And then the 12th vanished Lisper returns and Lispers are not
    suppressed anymore and won't be loosers forever. The world will be
    united in the name of Lisp and Lispers will be leaders and honorables.
    People stop worrying about Lispers as psychpaths and do not consider
    them as zealots, equipped with the character of suicide bombers. No,
    Lisp means peace and paradise.
     
    Kay Schluehr, May 6, 2006
    #14
  15. Xah Lee

    Bill Atkins Guest

    "Kay Schluehr" <> writes:

    > And then the 12th vanished Lisper returns and Lispers are not
    > suppressed anymore and won't be loosers forever. The world will be


    The mark of a true loser is the inability to spell 'loser.' Zing!

    > them as zealots, equipped with the character of suicide bombers. No,


    A very reasonable comparison. Yes, the more I think about it, we Lisp
    programmers are a lot like suicide bombers.

    Doofus.

    --
    This is a song that took me ten years to live and two years to write.
    - Bob Dylan
     
    Bill Atkins, May 6, 2006
    #15
  16. Xah Lee

    Bill Atkins Guest

    (Alex Martelli) writes:

    > Ken Tilton <> wrote:
    > ...
    >> > Absolutely. That's why firms who are interested in building *seriously*
    >> > large scale systems, like my employer (and supplier of your free mail

    > ...
    >> > Obviously will not scale. Never.
    >> >
    >> > Well... hardly ever!

    >>
    >> You are talking about being incredibly popular. I was talking about

    >
    > Who, me? I'm talking about the deliberate, eyes-wide-open choice by
    > *ONE* firm -- one which happens to more or less *redefine* what "large
    > scale" computation *means*, along many axes. That's got nothing to do
    > with Python being "incredibly popular": it has everything to do with
    > scalability -- the choice was made in the late '90s (and, incidentally,
    > by people quite familiar with lisp... no less than the reddit.com guys,
    > you know, the ones who recently chose to rewrite their side from Lisp to
    > Python...?), based on scalability issues, definitely not "popularity"
    > (Python in the late '90s was a very obscure, little-known language).
    >
    >> kenny (who is old enough to have seen many a language come and go)

    >
    > See your "many a language" and raise you one penny -- besides sundry
    > Basic dialects, machine languages, and microcode, I started out with
    > Fortran IV and APL, and I have professionally programmed in Pascal (many
    > dialects), Rexx, Forth, PL/I, Cobol, Lisp before there was a "Common"
    > one, Prolog, Scheme, Icon, Tcl, Awk, EDL, and several proprietary 3rd
    > and 4th generation languages -- as well of course as C and its
    > descendants such as C++ and Java, and Perl. Many other languages I've
    > studied and played with, I've never programmed _professionally_ (i.e.,
    > been paid for programs in those languages), but I've written enough
    > "toy" programs to get some feeling for (Ruby, SML, O'CAML, Haskell,
    > Snobol, FP/1, Applescript, C#, Javascript, Erlang, Mozart, ...).
    >
    > Out of all languages I know, I've deliberately chosen to specialize in
    > Python, *because it scales better* (yes, functional programming is
    > _conceptually_ perfect, but one can never find sufficiently large teams
    > of people with the right highly-abstract mathematical mindset and at the
    > same time with sufficiently down-to-earth pragmaticity -- so, for _real
    > world_ uses, Python scales better). When I was unable to convince top
    > management, at the firm at which I was the top programmer, that the firm
    > should move to Python (beyond the pilot projects which I led and gave
    > such stellar results), I quit, and for years I made a great living as a
    > freelance consultant (mostly in Python -- once in a while, a touch of
    > Pyrex, C or C++ as a vigorish;-).
    >
    > That's how come I ended up working at the firm supplying your free mail
    > (as Uber Tech Lead) -- they reached across an ocean to lure me to move
    > from my native Italy to California, and my proven excellence in Python
    > was their prime motive. The terms of their offer were just too
    > incredible to pass by... so, I rapidly got my O1 visa ("alien of
    > exceptional skills"), and here I am, happily ubertechleading... and
    > enjoying Python and its incredibly good scalability every single day!
    >
    >
    > Alex


    How do you define scalability?

    --
    This is a song that took me ten years to live and two years to write.
    - Bob Dylan
     
    Bill Atkins, May 6, 2006
    #16
  17. Ken Tilton <> writes:

    > <g> Hopefully it can be a big issue and still not justify a flame war.
    >
    > Mileages will always vary, but one reason for lambda is precisely not
    > to have to stop, go make a new function for this one very specific
    > use, come back and use it as the one lambda statement, or in C have an
    > address to pass. but, hey, what are editors for? :)
    >
    > the bigger issue is the ability of a lambda to close over arbitrary
    > lexically visible variables. this is something the separate function
    > cannot see, so one has to have a function parameter for everything.
    >
    > but is such lexical scoping even on the table when Ptyhon's lambda
    > comes up for periodic review?


    This is second-hand, as I don't actually follow Python closely, but
    from what I've heard, they now have reasonable scoping rules (or maybe
    they're about to, I'm not sure). And you can use def as a
    Scheme-style inner define, so it's essentially a LABELS that gets the
    indentation wrong. This means they have proper closures, just not
    anonymous ones. And an egregiously misnamed lambda that should be
    fixed or thrown out.

    If Python gets proper macros it won't matter one bit that they only
    have named closures, since you can macro that away in a blink of an
    eye.
     
    Thomas F. Burdick, May 6, 2006
    #17
  18. Xah Lee

    Kay Schluehr Guest

    Bill Atkins wrote:
    > "Kay Schluehr" <> writes:
    >
    > > And then the 12th vanished Lisper returns and Lispers are not
    > > suppressed anymore and won't be loosers forever. The world will be

    >
    > The mark of a true loser is the inability to spell 'loser.' Zing!


    There is not much lost.

    > > them as zealots, equipped with the character of suicide bombers. No,

    >
    > A very reasonable comparison. Yes, the more I think about it, we Lisp
    > programmers are a lot like suicide bombers.


    Allah Inschallah
     
    Kay Schluehr, May 6, 2006
    #18
  19. Martin P. Hellwig, May 6, 2006
    #19
  20. Xah Lee

    Bill Atkins Guest

    Bill Atkins, May 6, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Roman Suzi
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    628
    Bengt Richter
    Jan 7, 2005
  2. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    272
    Views:
    5,791
    Kay Schluehr
    May 24, 2006
  3. john_re
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    283
    john_re
    Apr 4, 2009
  4. zegga
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    673
    zegga
    Aug 1, 2009
  5. Xah Lee
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    1,127
    Kay Schluehr
    May 23, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page