What does Python fix?
jkraska at san.rr.com
Sat Sep 28 06:11:05 CEST 2002
>I'm curious to read a bit more about why Tim Peters (and presumably
>others) think that Lisp-inspired languages (even non-prefix ones) are
>doomed to eternal obscurity. Would anyone care to comment and/or give
>me some pointers to commentary on the subject?
Shrug. Lisp trades one form of complexity for another. By reducing
the solution to a universal grammar, they increase the symbolic load
on the user, who is awash in a page full of very similar symbols.
This is intimidating in particular to novices, for whatever reason,
who are instantly alienated. Without sweeping in novices, you lack
a grass roots movement, and without a grass roots, a language is dead.
The parts of lisp that really matter to the community have since
been adopted in part by many other languages. Lisp is dead. Long live
More information about the Python-list