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

[Michael Hudson]

David Eppstein <eppstein at ics.uci.edu> writes:

> In article <aqhmib$ei8$2 at solaris.cc.vt.edu>,
>  Carl Banks <imbosol at vt.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Python is more like Lisp than most other languages, though.  It's
> > similar semantically.
> 
> This makes little sense to me.  Even the most basic data structures are 
> different: Lisp is based around singly linked lists

This marks you out as not knowing lisp very well, I'm afraid...

> while Python uses vectors (with efficient random access unlike Lisp
> lists) and dictionaries.  They are also not especially similar in
> programming style, although both are capable of being used with a
> wide variety of styles. The most important similarity I see is that
> in both languages, values have types but variables are untyped,

The way bindings and objects and assigment and so on work in Lisp and
Python is almost indistinguishable, esp. compared to C or perl.

> but that was also true in radically different languages such as
> Snobol and APL; is that really enough to conclude that Python and
> Lisp are more like each other than anything else?

Well, it depends on the universe of languages you are considering; if
you have 

 { Java, Python, ocaml, Common Lisp, C++, perl }

I'd say Python and CL look pretty similar.

If you have

 { MacLisp, Lisp Machine Lisp, InterLisp, Lisp 1.5, Python }

then Python is obviously the odd one out.  And so on.

Cheers,
M.

-- 
112. Computer Science is embarrassed by the computer.
  -- Alan Perlis, http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/perlis-alan/quotes.html