I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the language.

[Lie Ryan]

Casey Hawthorne wrote:
> I'm intrigued that Python has some functional constructions in the
> language.
> 
> Would it be possible to more clearly separate the pure code (without
> side effects) from the impure code (that deals with state changes,
> I/O, etc.), so that the pure code could be compiled and have
> aggressive functional transformations applied to it for efficiency.

Choosing a better algorithm usually have much more impact on efficiency 
than programming to the language's optimization scheme. A slow algorithm 
will always be slow no matter how much (functional or regular) 
optimization in it[1]. If you bother efficiency that much, maybe python 
is not the best suited language for you.

> That way, the syntax would be a lot easier to understand, than most
> functional languages, like Haskell.

Python's syntax is already easier to understand than most functional 
language, and it also support functional-style programming. However, 
python is still an imperative language, no matter how much functional 
functionalities (pun not intended) is in it.


[1] of course there are certain types of optimizations -- that actually 
changes the algorithm -- that may have a significant impact, such as 
memoization. However if you know memoization well enough, you wouldn't 
want to activate it on all pure functions...