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

[Cameron Laird]

In article <20021108.151956.846811127.9010 at cybermesa.com>,
Jay O'Connor <joconnor at cybermesa.com> wrote:
			.
			.
			.
>However, my comparison was to Python, and in that respect TCL is
>substandard to both Python(and a whole host of other languages
>invented since C)
			.
			.
			.
>Yes, I notice non of the proposals can scale easily beyond simplistic
>usage in either size of problem space or complexity of problem.
			.
			.
			.
While we don't see the elided examples in the
same way, I shan't argue the point.  Yes, Tcl
does not build in scalable ways to model
complex data structures.  HOWEVER, it's now
easy to augment core Tcl with such mature
object-oriented extensions as [incr Tcl] <URL:
http://wiki.tcl.tk/itcl >, which are entirely
comparable to Python and other familiar languages
in the syntax of their class expressions.

Summary:  it's part of the Tcl way to have a
small core, and use extensions when you're pro-
gramming in a domain where those extensions are
advantageous.  I do not insist that you agree
with that engineering choice.  I ask that it
be represented accurately.

Again, it sounds as though your work experience
with Tcl was quite unpleasant, and there's cer-
tainly no need for you to spend more time with
it.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html