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

[Anton Vredegoor]

On Mon, 11 Nov 2002 11:15:22 +0100, "Johannes Grødem"
<johs+n at ifi.uio.no> wrote:

>* anton at vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor):
>
>> Maybe it's better to take a shortcut and to directly say what I
>> *think* I was implying: The perceived difficulty of the parens (and
>> it doesn't matter at all if this difficulty is real or imagined)
>> increased Lisp's popularity in the early days because at that time
>> it was thought that a programming language worth its wits had to be
>> difficult to read.
>
>So you're saying that people use Lisp because they're elitists?  I
>fail to see how that is not trolling.

There's a subtle difference, since this thread is about popularity
one has to accommodate for the fact that popularity can result from
factors that have little to do with factors internal to that which is
popular. For example I studied social psychology, and because of the
intellectual status that the exact sciences had (and maybe still have)
at that time a great part of my studies was taken up by studying
methodology, statistics and, yes informatics (also Lisp). Later on I
have had extensive experience with informaticians and mathematicians
and I have more or less reached a conclusion that although these
disciplines have some value, the usability of isolated sciences is
severely limited. Still some sciences are popular, highly rated, have
a lot of authority in governmental decision making, get the largest
funding, while there is really nothing to gain from single discipline
approaches. There has been some effort to create multidisciplinar
approaches in my country but as soon as they were created they fell
apart between the usual dividing lines of the existing established
faculties. So this is my take: Its a crazy ball game, some win some
loose, but none of them have any impact on the real world unless
there's some unified approach which doesn't preclude *any* opinion
from being investigated.

>
>> I would like to add at this stage that "ad hominem" attacks like
>> suggesting that I have been smoking - peculiar things maybe? - are
>> also considered to be bad form.
>
>Quite, but what is the appropriate response for an obvious troll?

There's no need for type checking! If someone tries to initiate the
troll protocol: don't comply. Even a troll might support useful
protocols and what's to be gained by initiating the troll protocol
oneself anyway?

Anton.