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

[Kenny Tilton]

Alex Martelli wrote:
> Paul Foley wrote:
> 
> 
>>On Thu, 21 Nov 2002 10:36:24 +0800, Maptek  wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Even if Python and Ruby have or will have the _capabilities_ that Lisp
>>>has, (Python (will (never (be (lisp))))).
>>
>>Then it'll never have the _capabilities_ that Lisp has; because the
>>syntax is the major source of those _capabilities_ that distinguish
>>Lisp from lesser languages.
> 
> 
> It seems to me that Dylan is a creditable attempt to deny this assertion -- 
> Dylan has no lisp-oid syntax, yet Dylan's capabilities do appear to be 
> quite similar to Lisp's at least at the level of approximation that "major 
> source" would seem to entail.

Pardon the hearsay, but more knowledgable CL folks than I, when this 
comes up, always say the sexpr notation is vital to CL. Macros, I think, 
are one example. But don't hold me to that. Code as data? Something like 
that.

Mind you, Dylan /does/ capture much of CL, so you are not far off.



-- 

  kenny tilton
  clinisys, inc
  ---------------------------------------------------------------
""Well, I've wrestled with reality for thirty-five years, Doctor,
   and I'm happy to state I finally won out over it.""
                                                   Elwood P. Dowd