What If Python Replaced Elisp?

Fredrik Lundh effbot at telia.com
Thu Mar 9 23:34:20 CET 2000

Samuel A. Falvo II wrote:
> I think this has a lot to do with the "explicit syntax tree" that you
> with LISP programs.  Think about it -- the structure of LISP programs
> directly mirrors an equivalent semantic tree built with a traditional
> compiler, like C.  As a result, the same types of optimizations that are
> possible with languages like C are possible with the likes of LISP too.

umm.  does using an explicit syntax tree turn Lisp
into a statically typed language?

> There is little, if anything, preventing this type of optimizability in
> Python as well -- I recall a discussion from a friend of mine (Billy
> Tanksley) from before I regularly read this newsgroup, indicating a desire
> to switch from plain bytecodes to three-operand RISC-like, platform
> independent, fixed-width codes.

Python's interpreter spends very little time decoding
the byte codes.  it spends lots of time looking things
up in dictionaries, filling in call frames, creating bound
method objects, and preparing argument tuples, just
to name a few things...


More information about the Python-list mailing list