What If Python Replaced Elisp?

[Christopher Browne]

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when Moshe Zadka would say:
>On 10 Mar 2000, Justin Sheehy wrote:
>
>> kragen at dnaco.net (Kragen Sitaker) writes:
>> 
>> > Well, Python is probably not as hard to optimize as Lisp and Scheme
>> > dialects.
>> 
>> This is an interesting statement.  On what do you base it?
>
>I don't know any Lisp (I assume he means Common Lisp) but Scheme is
>*almost* as dynamic as Python. What's more a reasonable subset of Python
>(toss out eval, exec and looking too quizzically at sys.exc_info()) is
>easily described via compilation to Scheme. Hence any Scheme optimization
>can be a Python optimization.

And hence the "gentle user" that wishes to do extensive optimization
of Python should look to Stalin.
<http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/qobi/software.html>
<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/guile/1998-12/msg00145.html>
<http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/guile/1998-12/msg00138.html>
<http://www.intertrust.com/star/wright/nj-seminar/feb97.html>
<http://www.computists.com/crs/crs9n16.html>

Stalin does considerable amounts of compile-time optimization
particularly relating to type inference.
-- 
1.79E12 furlongs/fortnight -- it's not just a good idea, it's the law.
cbbrowne at hex.net- <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>