Python compilers

[Cameron Laird]

In article <3CAAA0BF.E8E4659F at engcorp.com>,
Peter Hansen  <peter at engcorp.com> wrote:
			.
		[articulate lucidity]
			.
			.
>> If there is a python compiler, surely it would be able to generate code
>> that is as efficient as a C compiler, resulting in what would be the
>> best available OO language? (having simplicity, speed)
>
>No, but relatively few people are overly concerned about that.
>Most programmers who are greatly concerned about speed actually
>have no particular requirement in mind, they just want "more".
>Far too often this is a waste of their time.  Some people look
>at ways to optimize programs that take 60 seconds to run and
>get run once a day.  In C the same program might take 2 seconds,
>but so what?  It might also crash, and it took ten times longer
>to develop...
			.
			.
			.
Peter's answer is consummate.  On the off-chance that
Mr. Hazlewood truly wants to pursue his search for "the
best available OO language" as one which emphasizes
performance (in a naive one of its several senses) and
simplicity, I recommend that he consider Smalltalk (and
Squeak in particular).

Depending on how you conceive "simplicity", such languages
as Eiffel, Dylan, Self, Perl (!), and Sather also empha-
size performance in interesting ways.

OK, so does Ada, but not even *I* have the energy to 
argue for its simplicity.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://starbase.neosoft.com/~claird/home.html