Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Terry Hancock]

On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 00:54:22 -0500
"Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:
> In order to be that fast, some of the dynamism of
> intepreted Lisp must be  given up.  In particular object
> code is not list data.  Python with  type-dynamism
> eliminated can also be translated to decent C/C++ and then
> compiled.  See PyRex and Weave.  There is also Psyco,
> which I believe  translates directly to machine code.

I thought it was just "Pyrex" as in "Still as clear as
glass, but can really take the heat.".  ;-)

Now it's a small snake / dog chimera.  Eeeww. You've ruined
it for me.

> > so I don't understand why Python can't also eventually
> > be as efficient? Is there some *specific* basic reason
> > it's tough?  Or is it that this type of problem in
> > general is tough, and Lisp has 40+ years vs Python's ~15
> > years?

Otherwise, I think this has been well-answered -- if you
give up the same features, you can get the same speed. But
who cares?

Those things only matter in a very limited domain, and real
programs can use Python for logic and Python extension
modules for things that truly need optimization. If you use
Pyrex, you can even still pretend you're programming in
Python when you write those extensions. I'm sure that's why
some 3D libraries have opted to write the fast code in Pyrex
instead of C (even though either is possible).

 -- 
Terry Hancock (hancock at AnansiSpaceworks.com)
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.AnansiSpaceworks.com