Is a "real" C-Python possible?

[Chris Mellon]

On Dec 12, 2007 8:36 AM, sturlamolden <sturlamolden at yahoo.no> wrote:
> On 12 Des, 12:56, George Sakkis <george.sak... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, the 'make' statement.. I liked (and still do) that PEP, I think it
> > would have an impact comparable to the decorator syntax sugar, if not
> > more.
>
> I think it is one step closer to Lisp. I believe that it would be
> worth considering adding defmacro statement. Any syntax, including if,
> else, for, while, class, lambda, try, except, etc.  would be
> implemented with defmacros. We would only need a minimalistic syntax,
> that would bootstrap a full Python syntax on startup. And as for
> speed, we all know how Lisp compares to Python.
>

You say that as if "one step closer to Lisp" is a worthwhile goal.

Python has not become what it is, and achieved the success it has,
because a bunch of people really wanted to use Lisp but didn't think
other people could handle it.

The goal of these sorts of discussions should be to make Python a
better Python. But what happens far too often (especially with
Lispers, but not just them by any means) is that people want to make
Python into a clone or "better" version of whatever other language
they like.

If you're the sort of person who views lisp as the goal that other
languages should aspire to, and I know many of those people exist and
even frequent this list, then you should probably spend your time and
energy on making Lisp a better Lisp and addressing whatever weaknesses
in Lisp have you using Python instead. Trying to fix Lisp (or
whatever) by transforming Python into it isn't going to make you any
happier, and it's just going to derail any discussion of making Python
a better *Python*.