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

[Kenny Tilton]

David Eppstein wrote:
> In article <y1wC9.3258$jt3.1116 at newssvr16.news.prodigy.com>,
>  Steven Rumbalski <srumbalski at prodigy.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>David Eppstein wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The numbers I hear are that CL runs on average 20% slower than C.
>>>
>>>This is after how many decades of Lisp compiler development?
>>>
>>
>>Sheesh.  How long have C compilers been around?
> 
> 
> Not as long as Lisp by a long shot,..

Lisp has been around a long time, but how long have Lisp compilers been 
around?

> and C was designed to be easy to 
> compile.

Hunh? That was my point. Compiled CL being 20% slower than C has nothing 
to do with the ability of CL compiler writers, it has to do with late 
binding and dynamism in general.

I mean, this whole digression is silly. CL compiler writers have access 
to the research on compiler design. And like I said, apparently they 
know what they are doing based on CL being almost as fast as (portable) 
assembler.

The digression is silly for another reason: it started with someone 
saying Lispers should not call other languages slow. Whether you like 
respect CL compiler writers or not, compiled CL is almost as fast as C.

so.... slow! slow! slow! :)

Mind you, slow is fine given the performance of today's systems. I mean, 
it's relative, and a relatively slow language with other virtues is 
great if it is fast enough. My apps tend to use as much speed as they 
can get, but a whole lot get more than enough horsepower from today's 
boxes, so why not use that surplus to power an only relatively slow 
language.

-- 

  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