Python vs Lisp: was RE: how to pass the name of a variable as argument?

Dave <dfeustel at mindspring.com> writes:

> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:12:47AM -0700, Richard Fateman wrote:
>>well, as has been pointed out before, you can always write a maxima
>>top-level with a different syntax.
>>
>>A study pro/con of python vs. the Algol-60-ish top-level language
>> might be
>>appropriate.
>>Given the examples of Maple, Mathematica, Axiom, Matlab, Mupad,
>> Mathcad, ...
>>it might make a worthwhile study to contrast them all and try to find
>> either
>>a consensus or a new superior design.
>> It seems to me that the main strength of python is the number of
>> libraries
>>(written in C?) that can be easily called
>>from python. If this kind of access can be managed with the
>> Maxima-python
>>top level, then I suspect the same technique could be used to link
>> the
>>Maxima-Algol-60 top level to python libraries. While it is not
>> exactly
>>equivalent, I think I have pointed out that I loaded the MPFR
>>(multi-precision float/real) package into Lisp by loading the python
>>library, so it is not implausible. But are there other arguments?
>>
>>The original design of the Maxima language was supposed to be aimed
>> at users
>>of mathematics, not programmers.
>>
>>Originally, it seems almost inconceivable that non-trivial programs
>> would be
>>written in that Algol syntax.
>>the PDP-6 had 1.2megabytes of memory, and a cycle time of 1 MHz or
>> so. Over
>>1,000 times slower.
>>
>>given all this, a better design might come up.
>
> Would using Haskell for the top level be feasible?

Why not Common Lisp or better Scheme?

Considering that it's written in lisp.

-- 
"If we really understand the problem, the answer will come out of it,
because the answer is not separate from the problem."  
- Krishnamurti