If Scheme is so good why MIT drops it?

[Tim Daneliuk]

Carl Banks wrote:
> On Jul 19, 10:33 am, fft1976 <fft1... at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jul 19, 9:55 am, Frank Buss <f... at frank-buss.de> wrote:
>>
>>> E.g. the number system: In many Lisp
>>> implementations (/ 2 3) results in the fractional object 2/3. In Python 2.6
>>> "2 / 3" results in "0". Looks like with Python 3.1 they have fixed it, now
>>> it returns "0.6666666666", which will result in lots of fun for porting
>>> applications written for Python <= 2.6.
>> How do you explain that something as inferior as Python beat Lisp in
>> the market place despite starting 40 years later.
> 
> There was no reason to crosspost this here--looking at the original
> thread on comp.lang.lisp it seems they were doing a surprisingly good
> job discussing the issue.
> 
> I'm guessing it's because the fanboy Lispers like Ken Tifton were busy
> with a flamewar in another thread (LISP vs PROLOG vs HASKELL).
> 
> 
> Carl Banks

This is an incredibly important discussion and is much weaker because
it does not also include Pascal, BASIC, Ada, Oberon and Forth. In fact,
picking a computer language is the most important discussion in
Computer Science and eclipses even P=NP? in significance. I sure hope
we can keep this thread going for a few months. For guidance, see:


   http://www.tundraware.com/Technology/How-To-Pick-A-Programming-Language/



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk     tundra at tundraware.com
PGP Key:         http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/