http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1803815

Peter Norvig here. I came to Python not because I thought it was a
better/acceptable/pragmatic Lisp, but because it was better pseudocode.
Several students claimed that they had a hard time mapping from the
pseudocode in my AI textbook to the Lisp code that Russell and I
had online. So I looked for the language that was most like our
pseudocode, and found that Python was the best match. Then I had
to teach myself enough Python to implement the examples from the
textbook. I found that Python was very nice for certain types of
small problems, and had the libraries I needed to integrate with
lots of other stuff, at Google and elsewhere on the net.

I think Lisp still has an edge for larger projects and for applications
where the speed of the compiled code is important. But Python has
the edge (with a large number of students) when the main goal is
communication, not programming per se.

In terms of programming-in-the-large, at Google and elsewhere, I
think that language choice is not as important as all the other
choices: if you have the right overall architecture, the right team
of programmers, the right development process that allows for rapid
development with continuous improvement, then many languages will
work for you; if you don't have those things you're in trouble
regardless of your language choice.