Python's biggest compromises
mwh at python.net
Mon Aug 4 13:05:21 CEST 2003
Paul Rubin <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> writes:
> > As I understand it, Psyco unboxes some types and does away with some
> > of the need for any GC. *That* does seem to make a difference.
> I think very large performance improvements can come from changing the
> language semantics in ways that would cause some backwards
> incompatibility. But I think that should be considered for Python
> 3000 which should be implemented with a native-code compiler from the
> very outset. I don't see why a good Python system can't have the
> performance of a good Lisp system.
I can think of a few reasons, actually, with Python as it is today,
mostly along the lines of things like "you can't extend at runtime the
functionality of #'cl:=".
Tangentially, I'm not aware of any work that does Pysco-style dynamic
specialization in a Common Lisp environment, which surprises me to the
extent that I suspect I just don't know about it. Can anyone provide
... with these conditions cam the realisation that ... nothing
turned a perfectly normal healthy individual into a great political
or military leader better than irreversible brain damage.
-- The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy, Episode 11
More information about the Python-list