Why is Python popular, while Lisp and Scheme aren't?

[Courageous]

>I thought python was licensed BSD-ish and you wouldn't need clean-room antics for
>Python itself. Or were you using Python as implementation base to do a knock off
>of something else?

Ah. Well, the "clean room" phrase is so charged with meaning, and I'm really
misusing it. Would "I was writing my own python-ish lexer and parser for my
own amusement sake be more clear"? :)

I really wanted to face each lexing and parsing decision from afresh,
and face all the same problems a language designer would face without having
a corpus of prior art. Occasionally, I'll opine that some decision the python
designers made was the "natural solution to the problem, given the constraints
of the type of language they chose." This is because I've encountered the problem
personally, while trying to do it myself, and learned the nature of the "problem
of Python" against the possible solution space of interpreter design.

As for using the actual C-Python interpreter itself, I have some complaints about
its internal modularity. It suffers from its lack of having been written in an
OO language, IMO. Or to put it another way, there are (or were a year or two
ago) cases of internals that were done one way that would have been done another,
cleaner way had the language been implemented in an OO language.

Although, don't get me wrong on that: the Python internals are remarkably OO
given they're done in a non-OO language.

This was a long winded way of saying that I wanted all internals in C++.

:) :)

C//