Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Terry Reedy]

<63q2o4i02 at sneakemail.com> wrote in message 
news:1140324074.458446.227480 at z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> In learning Python I've read more about Lisp than when I was actually
> trying to learn it, and it seems that the two languages have lots of
> similarities:
>
> http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html
>
> I'm wondering if someone can explain to me please what it is about
> Python that is so different from Lisp that it can't be compiled into
> something as fast as compiled Lisp?  From this above website and
> others, I've learned that compiled Lisp can be nearly as fast as C/C++,

In order to be that fast, some of the dynamism of intepreted Lisp must be 
given up.  In particular object code is not list data.  Python with 
type-dynamism eliminated can also be translated to decent C/C++ and then 
compiled.  See PyRex and Weave.  There is also Psyco, which I believe 
translates directly to machine code.

> so I don't understand why Python can't also eventually be as efficient?
> Is there some *specific* basic reason it's tough?  Or is it that this
> type of problem in general is tough, and Lisp has 40+ years vs Python's
> ~15 years?

Yes, *much* more work has gone into Lisp than Python.  (At least 10x, I am 
sure. and maybe up to 100x)  During the 1980s, there was a Lisp/AI 
boom/bust something like the dot.com boom/bust of the last 1990s with 
perhaps a billion invested in Lisp/AI companies.  I presume some of that 
went into Lisp itself (as opposed to AI applications thereof).

Terry Jan Reedy