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

[Kenny Tilton]

Alexander Schmolck wrote:
> Kenny Tilton <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> writes:
> 
> 

>>>4. try e.g. modifying constant lists or writing a LOOP with undefined
>>>   behavior, or modifying the (string) keys in a hash-table.
>>
>>So use C++ and you won't shoot yourself in the foot (or get much done either
>><g>)
> 
> 
> What??? C++ and not shooting oneself in the foot? You're surely joking?

Two of the problems looked like C++ const declarations could prevent the 
problem, hence the "not shooting in the foot". Of course with C++ one 
shooys oneself in the head out of boredom waiting for builds.

> Yeah and assembler syntax is also real simple. Of course assembler syntax is
> *always* really simple, unlike say, CL which sports LOOP and FORMAT,
> readtables etc.

That is why I do not use LOOP. Format is indeed its own little world, 
but that does not compromise the straightforwardness of the rest of CL.

> 
> I have always been baffled by CLers praising the accessibility of lisp's
> simple syntax in the same breadth with LOOP and FORMAT (and the syntactic
> malleability of CL thanks to macros and readtables in general) :)

Well the context of the "accessibility" thang was for newcomers, so the 
hairy stuff would not affect them.

Me, I do not find /any/ code readable as natural language, tho it is 
always a goal. I have to slow down anyway because there is so much going 
on in just a line or two.

>>
>>   untyped variables
> 
> 
> Well, maybe assembler (or perl) is really what you're after then :)

don't know perl, but the other side of the coin I did not mention is 
that the data is strongly typed.

> (Maybe I'm
> wrong, but I thought that the "correct" usage is that both CL and python are
> strongly but dynamically typed?).

yes

> Hmm, but what makes you so optimistic that this will happen (it would be nice,
> I have to admit)? I mean, CL has been around for quite some time, without ever
> catching on...

Well, the battle was decided (temporarily?) in favor of static languages 
during the long decades before systems routinely shipped with ghz 
processors and hundreds mb ram. By the time those systems came along, 
almost everyone was using static languages. Folks don't change easily, 
so CL still does not get used widely.

But the language upheaval I see (Java, Python, Perl, Ruby) tells me 
folks are still looking for a better way, and as long as they are 
looking some are bound to find there way to the mother of all 
interactive, dynamic languages.

> I'm certainly willing to concede that CL still has many strong points when
> compared to python, but I think Lispers are too ready to dismiss the fact that
> the reverse is also true, *ignoring* popularity and availability of
> libraries. 

We Lispers are a little dreamy, so pragmatic advantages don't get as 
much credit as they might. But I for one am porting my Cells project:

   http://www.tilton-technology.com/cells_top.html

...to Python /precisely/ (a) to swim in a bigger pond (uh, pond with 
more fish?) and (2) because there is (I hear) a x-platform GUI, TKinter. 
And it's fun learning a new language, recommended so highly by a CL 
worthy such as Norvig.


-- 

  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