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

[Pascal Costanza]

Daniel Silva wrote:
> On Behalf Of Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
> 
> The thing is, I really WANT to like Lisp.  I just cannot seem to force
> myself to.  Then again, emacs also seems like a strange, unmanageable
> monstrosity... so I guess those go hand in hand.
> 
> 
> www.drscheme.org
> 
> :)

Beware: Common Lisp and Scheme are languages that are very different in 
certain areas, and their user communities have different goals. Of 
course they have some overlaps since they have their roots in the Lisp 
family of languages - however, some people even claim that Common Lisp 
and Scheme are as similar as C++ and Java. I don't think such 
comparisons are useful, but I quote this to give an impression.

So before you decide to try Scheme or Common Lisp, try to find out what 
they offer and what your requirements would be. If you have opted for 
one of them and it turned out that you don't like, give the other one 
also a try.

http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LispSchemeDifferences is probably a good starting 
point.

Pascal

P.S.: Perhaps this is a good place to explain how people use the names 
"Lisp" and "Scheme". In a broad sense, "Lisp" usually refers to a family 
of languages that includes "Common Lisp", "Scheme", older dialects (not 
in use anymore) like "MacLisp", "InterLisp", "Franz Lisp", and also 
newer ones like "Arc" and "Goo". In a narrow sense, Lisp currently 
refers to Common Lisp and Common Lisp only, which specifically excludes 
Scheme! How broad and/or narrow the name "Lisp" is used depends on the 
person using it, and perhaps on the context. There exist a broad 
spectrum of people, including those who would generally exclude Scheme 
even in the broad sense as one extreme and those who include Dylan and 
even Python as another extreme. (Personally, I prefer to be liberal and 
try to be explicit when it's important in a specific context.)

-- 
Given any rule, however ‘fundamental’ or ‘necessary’ for science, there 
are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to ignore the 
rule, but to adopt its opposite. - Paul Feyerabend