Benefits of moving from Python to Common Lisp?

[cbbrowne at acm.org]

"Pierre R. Mai" <pmai at acm.org> writes:
> When CMU CL was ported to x86 in the 90s, keeping up this partitioning
> scheme would have resulted in very bad performance, given the relative
> scarcity of general purpose registers on x86 machines, and the
> resulting register pressure.  For that reason CMU CL on x86 needed a
> conservative GC, that could deal with unboxed/untagged values in
> normal registers and the stack.  That is where the divergence started.
> Since most development on certain areas of CMU CL happened on x86
> during the 90s, CMU CL on x86 currently has a number of features that
> haven't been (fully) ported to the other platforms, like e.g.
> multi-processing and the generational aspects of the conservative GC
> on x86.

Interesting, and certainly not something one would _expect_ to see
happen.

> F'up to comp.lang.lisp set, since I don't think that further
> discussion is that interesting to those that use Python the language
> (and not Python the CMU CL compiler).  Feel free to ignore it, if
> I'm mistaken...

Well, to use Python, the CMU CL compiler, as a compiler for Python,
the language, would represent a strangely interesting application, and
one I'd think tremendously likely _not_ to happen.

That's probably regrettable; it would be very nice to see some of the
developments in "Python, the compiler" applied more widely.  And for
the application to be "Python, the language" would be almost
Pythonesque.  (To take a third meaning :-).)
-- 
(reverse (concatenate 'string "moc.enworbbc@" "sirhc"))
http://www.cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
:FATAL ERROR -- ATTEMPT TO USE CANADIAN COINS