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

[Erik Max Francis]

Paul Foley wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Nov 2002 13:03:43 -0800, Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
> > Note that for "first tastes," Scheme is probably a better
> > introduction [clipped]
>
> "Introduction" to what?  Scheme and Lisp are very different languages.

To Lisp-like languages, which was clearly stated in the line you trimmed
which immediately followed the one you quoted here.  My point is that if
you're just interested in learning about the approach of Lisp-like
language as opposed to, say, Algol-like languages or Prolog-like
languages, then Scheme might be a better choice because of its greater
simplicity and focus on the fundamentals.  You might disagree, but it
was obviously subjective advice anyway.

> > Scheme doesn't have this distinction between a symbol and the
> > function
> > associated with it, so there's no distinction between ' and #'.
>
> It most certainly does, and there is.

To explicitly apply a function to a list of arguments in Common Lisp you
would write:

	(apply #'+ '(1 2 3))

In Scheme this is an error, since #'... has no meaning in Scheme. 
Instead, you would write:

	(apply + '(1 2 3))

In Scheme you do not have to say, "Go get me the function that this
symbol represents"; in Lisp you do.  (Yes, there are cases where Lisp
will do it for you via macros, but the distinction is still there which
Lisp makes but Scheme does not.)

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ All the gods are dead except the god of war.
\__/ Leroy Eldridge Cleaver
    Bosskey.net: Aliens vs. Predator 2 / http://www.bosskey.net/avp2/
 A personal guide to Aliens vs. Predator 2.