<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > In learning Python I've read more about Lisp than when I was actually > trying to learn it, and it seems that the two languages have lots of > similarities: > > http://www.norvig.com/python-lisp.html > > I'm wondering if someone can explain to me please what it is about > Python that is so different from Lisp that it can't be compiled into > something as fast as compiled Lisp? From this above website and > others, I've learned that compiled Lisp can be nearly as fast as C/C++,
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. > 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? Yes, *much* more work has gone into Lisp than Python. (At least 10x, I am sure. and maybe up to 100x) During the 1980s, there was a Lisp/AI boom/bust something like the dot.com boom/bust of the last 1990s with perhaps a billion invested in Lisp/AI companies. I presume some of that went into Lisp itself (as opposed to AI applications thereof). Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
