I did not participate in the study, but after I saw it, I wrote my version in Lisp. It took me about 2 hours (compared to a range of 2 to 8.5 hours for the other Lisp programmers in the study, 3 to 25 for C/C++ and 4 to 63 for Java) and I ended up with 45 non-comment non-blank lines (compared with a range of 51 to 182 for Lisp, and 107 to 614 for the other languages). (That means that some Java programmer was spending 13 lines and 84 minutes to provide the functionality of each line of my Lisp program.)
While relaxing a bit while testing was going on for our code push today, I followed the same instructions, only in Python. I hadn't read his lisp code before (and reading it afterwards, there is a lot of Common-Lisp-isms that I don't really understand), nor had I read the specific problem before (though I solved a similar problem in the spring of 1999 during a local programming competition in undergrad in C++).
My first correct solution was done in an hour with 53 non-comment lines, but I could trim it to 37 lines if I was okay collapsing all lines that could be collapsed.
Looking around a bit while counting lines, I realized that if I added a utility function, I could remove some confusing stuff, while at the same time reducing line count. Spending another 10 minutes got me to 47 lines without comments or spaces, and 44 if I collapsed all lines that could be collapsed while limiting it to 78 columns wide.
My solution is available at this github gist. I didn't write this or this blog post to be "look at how good Python is", because obviously one's ability to program solutions to problems/puzzles/etc., is fundamentally related to your experience and ability to think in a given language. And, on the most part, I've been living and breathing Python for the past 10+ years, with the last 6 years programming 4-5 days a week in Python both professionally and personally. That said, I do think that similar conclusions can be drawn from this bit of the experiment as Peter made, primarily that Python is very effective, very expressive, and can cut out a lot of the bullshit that most Java programmers deal with on a regular basis.
A commenter pointed out that I had a bug that was exposed running over the large input files and comparing with the large output file. I fell into the same ambiguity as was pointed out in the paper as the "hint" on page 12.
If you want to see more posts like this, you can buy my book, Redis in Action from Manning Publications today!