On Fri, Jun 27, 2014 at 11:49:57AM -0400, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 08:49:32PM -0500, Lawrence Bottorff wrote: > > > I see a huge differential between the high quality of Racket and the fact > > that its popularity is low. Then again, perhaps Racket is where Python was > > ten years ago, i.e., more than ready for prime-time, "batteries included," > > far better than languages X (Perl), Y, and Z . . . but not yet widely > > accepted. Then Python began to make big strides. > > I'm told that the inventor of python was inspired by Lisp nd Modula 3. > (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) So I suppose pyython conld be > considered to ba part of the Lisp tradition.
I stand corrected: : Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2014 11:18:11 -0700 : From: Matthew Butterick <m...@mbtype.com> : To: Hendrik Boom <hend...@topoi.pooq.com> : http://python-history.blogspot.com/2009/04/origins-of-pythons-functional-featur +es.html : "I [Guido van Rossum] have never considered Python to be heavily influenced by : +functional languages, no matter what people say or think." : FWIW Thanks. I now wonder what it was that I misremembered. -- hendrik ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
