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

[A. Lloyd Flanagan]

> misguided moral philosophy. One could as well argue that the failure of Lisp
> is that its inventors spent too much time fighting each other over trivia
> rather than focusing on creating great libraries and applications to make it
> valuable to others. There was a window of opportunity from the late 70s to
> the late 80s, but the Lisp community bet on Lisp machines, dialect variants,
> and narrow application niches (AI in particular). In addition, all the best
> Lisp implementations were either proprietary or tied to exotic platforms.
> Much effort was wasted by all, allowing other languages to claim a territory
> that could have been naturally Lisp's.
> 
> In summary, Lisp's problem is that it had no BDFL.
> 
Exactly.  In addition, Lisp proponents have historically been
contemptous of attempts to run efficiently on available hardware,
something which is somewhat important to anybody without a bunch of
extra cash to buy more powerful hardware.  You can't completely ignore
the desires of the market and expect to sell a whole lot of anything.

In addition, I think Common Lisp killed a lot of Lisp's momentum. 
Much of Lisp's power comes from the application of just a few basic
language elements; CL added an incredible amount of complexity in the
process of including each and every favorite feature of all the major
players in the Lisp market.  Check out Guy Steele's Common Lisp. 
Python has the power but hasn't (yet at least) been drowned in
complexity.