Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Cameron Laird]

In article <eq7pc3-ml5.ln1 at lairds.us>, I wondered:
>In article <yfsbqx3ov29.fsf at oc.ex.ac.uk>,
>Alexander Schmolck  <a.schmolck at gmail.com> wrote:
>			.
>			.
>			.
>>However I don't find it at all implausible to assume that had Guido known all
>>the stuff that say, David Ungar and Guy Steele were aware of at the same time,
>>python would have come out not necessarily less dynamic but considerably
>>faster -- to its own detriment.
>>
>>'as
>
>
>Alexander, you've lost me.  I *think* you're proposing that,
>were Guido more knowledgeable, he would have created a Python
>language that's roughly as we know now, implemented it with
>FASTER software ... and "to its own detriment".  Do you truly
>believe that fewer people would use Python if its execution
>were faster?

I think I can answer my own question:  yes.  Since posting, I came
across a different follow-up where Alexander explains that he sees
healthy elements of the Python ethos--focus on a reliable, widely-
used library, willingness to make Python-C partnerships, and so
on--as results at least in part of early acceptance of Python as
intrinsically slow.  That's too interesting an argument for me to
respond without more thought.