I'm sorry having dabbled in Ruby and having actively coded in Python and Lisp (Scheme, Clojure) you and the OP are laying the FUD on thick. I would argue Lisp has been able to stay relevant for so long because it's syntax assumes nothing about what domain you might be modeling. On the other hand, so little syntax means less "landmarks" and lot of programmers are put off by that.
Syntax is human and syntax is ergonomics. That's why languages with good syntax are so popular and deservedly so.
At the same time I think the number one reason languages eventually die off is because of syntax. A particular syntax was designed for solving specific kinds of problems. Then people realize there are deeper or different problems that the syntax cannot adequately address. Since the language is not a Lisp it cannot be repaired.
I think Python and Ruby are cool and useful tools, but I don't think their design will last another 50 years as Lisp probably will.
Syntax is human and syntax is ergonomics. That's why languages with good syntax are so popular and deservedly so.
At the same time I think the number one reason languages eventually die off is because of syntax. A particular syntax was designed for solving specific kinds of problems. Then people realize there are deeper or different problems that the syntax cannot adequately address. Since the language is not a Lisp it cannot be repaired.
I think Python and Ruby are cool and useful tools, but I don't think their design will last another 50 years as Lisp probably will.