If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

[Carl Banks]

On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 <fft1... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss <f... at frank-buss.de> wrote:
>
> > E.g. the number system: In many Lisp
> > implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6
> > "2 / 3" results in "0". Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now
> > it returns "0.6666666666", which will result in lots of fun for porting
> > applications written for Python <= 2.6.
>
> How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in
> the market place despite starting 40 years later.

There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original
thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good
job discussing the issue.

I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy
with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL).


Carl Banks