Functional languages vs. hybrids (was Re: How does Ruby compare to Python?? How good is DESIGN ofRubycompared to Python?)

[Joe Mason]

In article <mailman.246.1077987607.8594.python-list at python.org>, Paul Prescod wrote:
> Joe Mason wrote:
> 
>>...
> > Down in the depths of the compiler, the simplest way to
> > implement (C-style) functions is just to total up all the
> > parameters and local space it will need and lay out a
> > stack frame.
> 
> We're talking about Python and the Python compiler generates Python 
> bytecodes, not machine code!

I wasn't anymore, which is why I changed the thread title.

> Python function calling was never even remotely close to machine 
> function calls for a variety of reasons (primarily the fact that we're 
> talking about an interpreter rather than a compiler).

That's a good thing to point out, though.  I didn't mean to imply that
the first-order-function price was the main, or even an important, thing
that made Python slower than C.  (I actually said that a couple of
times, and kept snipping it because it kept coming out sounding like I
was dumping on Python for being slow.  Should've kept it in.)

Joe