Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.python > #22356 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-03-29 13:31 -0500 |
| Last post | 2012-03-29 13:31 -0500 |
| Articles | 1 — 1 participant |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2012-03-29 13:31 -0500
| From | Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-03-29 13:31 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: Number of languages known [was Re: Python is readable] - somewhat OT |
| Message-ID | <mailman.1131.1333045868.3037.python-list@python.org> |
On 03/29/12 12:48, Nathan Rice wrote: > Of course, this describes Lisp to some degree, so I still need to > provide some answers. What is wrong with Lisp? I would say that the > base syntax being horrible is probably the biggest issue. Do you mean something like: ((so (describes Lisp (to degree some) (of course)) still-need (provide I some-answers)) (is wrong what (with Lisp)) (would-say I ((is (base-syntax being-horrible) (probably-biggest issue))))) nah...can't fathom what's wrong with that... «grins, ducks, and runs» -tkc
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python
csiph-web