Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

Steven D'Aprano <steve at REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> writes:

> On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 10:15:21 +0100, Torsten Bronger wrote:
>
>>> And, as someone in this thread has pointed out, it is likely
>>> that your important modern (x86) processor is not natively
>>> executing your x86 code, and indeed meets your definition of
>>> having "in its typical implementation an interpreting layer
>>> necessary for typical hardware".
>> 
>> Only if you deliberately misunderstand me.
>
> If the words you choose to use have implications which you failed
> to realise before saying them, don't blame the reader for spotting
> those implications.

To me it sounds like "Some hardware is harder than other".

>>> Another example: is Java the bytecode, which is compiled from
>>> Java the language, interpreted or not? Even when the HotSpot JIT
>>> cuts in?
>> 
>> It is partly interpreted and partly compiled.  That's why it's
>> faster than Python.
>
> But Python is partly interpreted and partly compiled too

It's byte-compiled for a VM, that's not the same, and you know it.
Sorry but I think we've exchanged all arguments that are important.
Any further comment from me would be redundant, so I leave it.

> [...]
>
>> [...]  However, I think that it's fair to make a distiction
>> between compiled and interpreted languages because it may affect
>> one's decision for one or the other.  [...]
>
> Would you rather use a blindingly fast interpreted language, or a
> slow-as-continental drift compiled one?
>
> This isn't a rhetorical question. [example]
>
> I'm sure that's hardly the only example of a speedy interpreted
> language beating a glacial compiled one.

I agree that the distinction between interpreted and compiled
languages is not as clear as between positiv and negative numbers,
however, neither anybody has claimed that so far, nor it is
necessary.  It must be *practical*, i.e. a useful rule of thumb for
decision making.  If you really know all implications (pros and
cons) of interpreted languages, it's are very useful rule in my
opinion.

> [...]
>
> But seriously... why not tell them the truth? Python is slower
> than some other languages because optimization for execution speed
> has not been the primary focus of Python's development. If you
> tell them that Python is slow because it is interpreted, they will
> believe that Python will always be slow.

I don't think that "Python's developers don't focus primarily on
speed" sounds better than "Python is interpreted".  Both suggests
that you must circumvent problems with Python's execution speed (we
all know that this works and how) because you can't count on
language improvements.  Even worse, evading "interpreted" may sound
like an euphemism and as if you want to hide unloved implementation
features, depending on your audience.

Tschö,
Torsten.

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