[OT] Compilable Python-like language?

[Jacek Generowicz]

llothar at web.de (Lothar Scholz) writes:

> Ed Cogburn <edcogburn at hotpop.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.272.1080036399.742.python-list at python.org>...
> > Jacek Generowicz wrote:
> >  > That rather depends on what you mean by "Python-like".
> > 
> > 
> > Oh dear...
> 
> yes, oh my dear...., you posted a troll question.
> 
> There is nothing like that what you want. It is just not there because
> it is impossible.

Huh ?

> It simply does not work with languages like python which are
> extremely dynamic - including metaprogramming.

So how do you explain the existence of compilers (to-native-binary)
for languages just as dynamic as Python ?

> Even a full compiled LISP, that means safety settings set to lowest
> priority and typedeclarations everywhere simply isn't much of the
> lisp you may (not) know.

What on earth are you talking about?

Type declarations and safety settings in Lisp have an influence on the
amount of checks (array bounds, overflows, type-checks and so on) that
are performed at run-time. This is completely, totally and utterly
orthogonal to "compliation to binary".

Common Lisp programs, when fully compiled are fully
compiled. Period. Whether the program contains any type declarations,
or any optimization declarations, has no influence on whether the
program is fully compiled or not. The only thing that has any
influence on whether the program is fully compiled, is whether you
compiled your whole program or just bits of it.

You appear to be thoroughly confused about what "compliation" means.