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

[Andreas Leitgeb]

Pascal Costanza <costanza at web.de> wrote:
>> I quote one function from AisleRiot  (game Kansas):
>> " (define (button-pressed slot-id card-list)
>> "  (and (not (= (length card-list) 0))
>> "       (is-visible? (car card-list))
>> "       (or (= slot-id 1)
>> "           (> slot-id 5))))

> If you are used to this kind of syntax, it's very simple. I don't know 
> enough Python (yet) in order to translate this, but in Java it would 
> look as follows.
> 1 boolean buttonPressed (int slotId, Vector cardList) {
> 2    return !(cardList.size() == 0) &&
> 3           cardList.get(0).isVisible() &&
> 4           ((slotId == 1) || (slotId > 5));
> 5 }

I'd have rewritten it differently (to show the point I was
trying to make by calling the scheme-snippet ugly):
  2    if (cardList.size() == 0) return false;
  3    else if (!cardList.get(0).isVisible()) return false;
  4    else return ((slotId == 1) || (slotId > 5));
Now this doesn't make a big difference here, but it makes 
a lot of a difference, once, things get longer and deeper nested.
 
> My basic message here is that you might like Common Lisp more than 
> Scheme. *nudge, nudge*
I'm not sure if I can really see the difference yet (beyond some
  differently named predefined symbols/keywords).

Since almost every modern language (worth mentioning) has the concept 
 of short cutting boolean evaluation,  one could write Lisp/Scheme
 style everywhere; Nevertheless I'm glad it's not so common anywhere 
 else.