Python vs. Lisp -- please explain

[Torsten Bronger]

Hallöchen!

claird at lairds.us (Cameron Laird) writes:

> In article <eq7pc3-ml5.ln1 at lairds.us>, I wondered:
>
>> [...]  Do you truly believe that fewer people would use Python if
>> its execution were faster?
>
> I think I can answer my own question: yes.  Since posting, I came
> across a different follow-up where Alexander explains that he sees
> healthy elements of the Python ethos--focus on a reliable, widely-
> used library, willingness to make Python-C partnerships, and so
> on--as results at least in part of early acceptance of Python as
> intrinsically slow.  That's too interesting an argument for me to
> respond without more thought.

I was rather stunned, too, when I read his line of thought.
Nevertheless, I think it's not pointless, albeit formulated in an
awkward way.  Of course, Python has not been deliberately slowed
down.

I don't know how strong the effect is that a language design which
doesn't allow for (easy to implement) fast execution speed makes you
write cleaner code, however, I must say that I feel so, too.  When I
came from C++ to Python I had to find my Pythonic style, and part of
it was that I threw away those ubiquitous little optimisations and
concentrated on formulating my idea in a clear and expressive way.

By the way, this is my main concern about optional static typing: It
may change the target group, i.e. it may move Python closer to those
applications where speed really matters, which again would have an
effect on what will be considered Pythonic.

Tschö,
Torsten.

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