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

[Erik Max Francis]

Anton Vredegoor wrote:

> Without confirming that I want that, I would like to mention that
> functional languages can't have side effects.

That's usually what I've heard people call "pure functional languages,"
which are really relegated to academia.  Most program domains need to do
_some_ side effecting, like taking input and output.  (There are ways to
cleverly hide this in a functional way, but the input and output is
still technically a side effect.)

In my experience, most people use "functional language" to indicate a
language where things primarily get done via return values of functions
only but side effects are a necessary evil (for I/O or environment
changes).  Common Lisp and Scheme are functional languages, but they're
not pure functional.

One might talk about languages that _support_ functional paradigms but
don't primarily rely upon them; Python would qualify in this respect.

-- 
 Erik Max Francis / max at alcyone.com / http://www.alcyone.com/max/
 __ San Jose, CA, USA / 37 20 N 121 53 W / &tSftDotIotE
/  \ I do not like work even when someone else does it.
\__/ Mark Twain
    Bosskey.net: Aliens vs. Predator 2 / http://www.bosskey.net/avp2/
 A personal guide to Aliens vs. Predator 2.