On 23 Aug 2002 04:21:03 -0700, adamon / mailandnews.com (Damon) wrote:

>In this article, Graham writes:
>
>         The latest hot language, Python, is a watered-down Lisp
>         with infix syntax and no macros. A new Lisp would be a
>         natural step in this progression.
>
>Can someone elaborate on this?  I've seen passing references to this
>assertion that Python and Lisp have somewhat related in design and
>principles elsewhere, but did not fully understand the reasons why. 
>Can someone please elaborate on them?

Simple explanation. Common Lisp programmers are so frustrated with
the position that Common Lisp is in that they resort to extreme
rationalizations.

First there's Gabriels Rule. The best technology is never the most
popular technology. Only they restate it is: the better the
technology, the least popular it is. That way the less popular Lisp
becomes the more superior they can act. ( It's like the snootty guys
who say: "We know why they pick on us. It's because they are jealous.
)

Second there is the claim that every language is really Lisp in
disguise. When Smalltalk was popular it was Lisp in disguise.
When C++ was popular it was that every sufficiently complex
C++ program implements a Lisp engine in disguise. When Java was
popular it's that Java was really Lisp in disguise. 

Now it's Python and XML. Python is Lisp in disguise and XML are
sexpresions in disguise. This is the way they deny the poor status of 
Lisp in the programming community, by claiming that they are the best
because everyone else is ripping them off.

Except that it really is not true. I suggest you go to Grahams web
site again and look up the articles, Revenge of the Nerds and
RE: Revenge of the Nerds. There you will find a link to Paul Prescod's
web site where he points out that not only is Python different from 
Lisp, but that TPTB in Python are taking steps which move Python
even further away from Lisp.