On Sat, 17 Jan 2009, Willem Broekema wrote: >> Any hint of what the next steps for clpython are? Just curious ;-)! > > A few things that play: > > - Getting the shootout benchmark running > <http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/>. The result of the tests that can > be run is that CLPython performance is not bad, but CPython is on > average a bit faster. Interesting! Do you think this is because most of the CPython code in the benchmark relies on library functions that are compiled C code? Have you thought about adding optional types to CLPython (a.l.a. PEP 3107 in Python 3.0)? If these expanded to type declarations in common lisp I think the performance could be improved significantly.... all speculation of course! > - Running Sympy, a big pure-Python project, to show language > completeness. Attempting this lead already to many small fixes and > conversion of required Python standard library files. Sweet... and something I'd find quite useful to boot! > - A future goal is to have an Emacs IDE for Python based on Slime. In > particular I'd like to have a great debugger for stepping through > Python code. If anyone has good ideas or wishes for this, let me know. Sounds great! Thanks for the list of goodness to come. Jason
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4