"Alex Martelli" <aleaxit at yahoo.com> wrote in message news:9at9lt11iet at news1.newsguy.com... > Scheme, with comparable flexibility (and only a tad more complication), > has some compilers which generate _splendid_ code -- yet, alas, it > seems to be used mostly in teaching and researching CS; nor does > CLisp (vastly more complicated, but _rich_ with _excellent_ > compilers) appear to be anywhere near the road to world dom. So, > it's still to be seen whether what you call 'excess flexibility' is indeed > at all significant as a factor keeping the code-generation unoptimized > in Python, AND pretty doubtful that code-generation improvements > would be significant to Python's success as a language. As for popularity, I agree - but it would be nice to work wholly within Python, rather than dropping back to C or C++ for algorithms that can't afford the runtime cost of an interpreter. This is probably not a new suggestion, but has anyone looked into the possibility of implementing core Python in Common Lisp? At a glance, it would seem to be the shortest route to an interpreted AND compiled Python, in a fully interactive environment. Interactive development is even better in Lisp - eg, being able to modify and compile individual functions while a program is running is a real luxury - especially for server side development. I'm not sure what we'd do with all the other Python goodies though: GUI toolkits, C extension modules, etc. If this has been discussed before, could someone point me to a mailing list archive, or any other source? I'd be interested to hear of any efforts (successful or otherwise) in this direction.
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