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

[John Roth]

"Kenny Tilton" <ktilton at nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3DE2B626.6000009 at nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> Martti Halminen wrote:
> > Alexander Schmolck wrote:
>
> >>Well, if you prefer then elt is inconsistent :)
> >
> > Sure it is. We are talking about a language that had as one of its
> > primary design criteria at least some compatibility with existing
code
> > bases in its predecessors, so many design warts had to be retained.
> > Obviously not a problem for people getting to define their language
on a
> > clean slate.
>
> And this will set an upper bound on how far Python can go, with an
> obligation not to break all the stuff piling up in the Vaults. (Not
that
> I am aware of any actual desire to take the language in new
directions;
> I get the feeling "less is more" was the Prime Directive.)

I believe he was talking about Lisp in that paragraph, not Python.
However,
your comment re. Python is IMO correct; there's a desire to avoid
gratuitously breaking older code in newer releases. However, that hasn't
stopped things like the integer division change, or the new yield
keyword for generators. Both of those *will* break code.

John Roth
>
> --
>
>   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
>