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

[Anton Vredegoor]

On 10 Nov 2002 13:57:37 -0800, voodoo1man at hotmail.com (Vlad S.) wrote:

<snip some descriptions of the devastating effects of compromising
Lisp>

>the language, and get a YAPFL (yet another pseudo functional
>language). Last time I checked, Python fit into that category, so you
>already have what you say you want.

Without confirming that I want that, I would like to mention that
functional languages can't have side effects. So in order to generate
any output at all some concessions have to be made. Strictly speaking
Lisp is not a functional language. To get at a strictly functional
language - now switching into science fiction mode - a possible
strategy could use an idea found in one of A.E. van Vogt's novel's.
Here a description of a part of the universe is made inside a human
brain which is indistinguishable from the real thing up until the
twentieth's decimal. This enables the main character to effect changes
in the universe because at that level of equality the description of
the universe and the universe itself cannot occupy separate locations.
It's an interesting read and also popularizes some ideas about
identity from Korzibsky's works.

Regards,
		Anton.