Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

"Kay Schluehr" <kay.schluehr at gmx.net> writes:

> Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>> [...]
>>
>> I'm still afraid of the following scenario: Eventually, people
>> might regard "RPython plus type declarations" (or something
>> similar) as first-class Python because it's faster and runs on
>> more implementations, so they try to stick to it.  So effectively
>> you would have changed Python.
>
> I wonder why you believe that it would run on more platforms?

I meant the following: RPython programs will run on all Python
implementations, *plus* the environments where only RPython is
possible.

> This assertion is justifiable with regard of tiny target hardware
> - but else? I do think that "RPython++" could be a viable
> replacement for C as a systems programming language BECAUSE it is
> connected closely to Python.

Ah, okay.  This was a vision that I didn't understand from previous
postings.

> [...]
>
>> Maybe I misunderstood something because I could not follow all of
>> Kay's text but I think one should not change Python or create a
>> look-alike to allow for better implementations.  The language
>> should fit my brain rather than an implementation.
>
> It should first of all fit the diversity of a programmers needs. C
> was never considered as a hostile brother of Python so why should
> it be Pythons own son?

Because I think it would be tempting to add all necessary declations
in order to make one's code working with the fastest Python
implementation available.  After all, mostly we know the types,
although currently we don't declare them.  It's a purely
psychological issue: People want to create "valueable" code,
pythonistas even more so, ignoring that eventually it may turn out
that this was not a good idea.  Current Python *forces* us to keep
the code as flexible as possible.

Tschö,
Torsten.

-- 
Torsten Bronger, aquisgrana, europa vetus            ICQ 264-296-646