Python is the best and most popular general purpose scripting language; the universal scripting language

[val]

"Ron Stephens" <rstephens at vectron.com> wrote in message
news:a5415304.0404101350.271088f2 at posting.google.com...
> Python is the best and most popular general purpose scripting
> language. That is, Python is the best and most popular general
> purpose, dynamic, interpreted language. Sure, there are other
> scripting languages that are more popular for specific application
> domains, and there are big company backed systems languages that are
> far more popular; but in its niche, Python is tops.
> [...]
> Long live Python, the universal solvent!
>
> Ron Stephens
> www.awaretek.com/weblog/index.html

    An interesting discussion, and i'd like to ask experts
a general question.   Looking at a huge variety of programming
languages each with its specific design and application niche,
does it make a sense to design an *adaptive* language/interpreter?
'Adaptive' in terms of optimizing its structure/design and libraries
based on the specified criteria (performance, footprint, or whatever),
including even its run-time dynamics degree (compilation/interpretation
ratio).
    Such a beast would evaluate its input(code and data) making proper
generalizations and restructuring itself properly within available
hardware resources.  I don't think this is a great innovation.
JCL was probably a step in this direction.  Also, at that time
there were a few publications on "self-organizing compiler"
(by Friedberg from IBM, 1958?).  Then meta-programming and meta-classes,
though without specific focus on the interpreter/compiler
optimization.
    It may, though, confuse a user in terms of in what language to
write an application; well, that's where the classical Python would
probably be a great choice.
    Does it make any sense?

too-many-languages-too-short-life-ly y'rs,
val