Choosing a programming language as a competitive tool

[Steven D. Majewski]

On Sun, 6 May 2001, Sheila King wrote:

> On Sat, 05 May 2001 17:50:22 +0200, Fernando Rodrguez
> <spamers at must.die> wrote in comp.lang.python in article
> <b2g7fto3rcb74e8spm45foas15hgtbmnm0 at 4ax.com>:
> 
> :	Common Lisp is a useful tool for the Python programmer when you need
> :more power or speed. I use both.
> 
> I'm curious: Do you use them together in the same project? (I'm
> guessing, "yes".) This thread has gotten me curious enough to poke
> around the web and look at some materials on Lisp.

 I (also) use both, but I don't use them together, in the sense of 
having them both embedded together in the same program. That doesn't
seem worth the effort -- I'ld choose one or the other depending. 

 However, lots of other threads on the desire for a better python
compiler, and comparisons with Lisp performance has me again 
considering the idea of writing another Python implementation
in Lisp (i.e. parallel to what Jython is to Java). 

 It would be interesting to see if the benefits of an optimizing
Lisp compiler would carry though to better LPython performance. 

 [ Comparisons to Self and Lisp have, I think, pretty well shot 
 down the idea that Python is too dynamic to be optimized (however,
 what I've always said is that python is too dynamic to be EASILY
 optimized). My current pet theory is that the Python-VM instructions
 are on average too high-level for a lot of optimization. Other than
 comparisons with the CISC vs. RISC debate, this theory has as little
 evidence and any of my other theories! ;-) ]

-- Steve Majewski